Slashdot Mirror
Australian Firm Asks SCO To Detail Evidence
An anonymous reader submits A Perth, Western Australian company called CyberKnights has told SCO ANZ's MD to detail its IP claims or face legal action for fraud. SCO has just released licenses for Australasia and claims enquiries by several companies already."
"(1) Where a person, by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens a person with an action or proceeding in respect of an infringement of copyright, then, whether the person making the threats is or is not the owner of the copyright or an exclusive licensee, a person aggrieved may bring an action against the first-mentioned person and may obtain a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable, and an injunction against the continuance of the threats, and may recover such damages (if any) as he or she has sustained, unless the first-mentioned person satisfies the court that the acts in respect of which the action or proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of copyright."
I wonder whether SCO has fallen foul of it...
Who is the ACCC and where are they mentioned in this article? I know. I am a ethnocentric American but ACCC sounds like the Atlantic City Civic Center to me.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Basically an independent watch dog organisation set up through legislation to try to ensure the consumer doesn't get too screwed over in the course of business.
They recently prevented a merger between Qantas and Air New Zealand which would have removed pretty much all competition in the airline industry for flights between the two countries.
They certainly have teeth - which is remarkable for such a body.
They are mentioned in the article as being the first step in the legal process should SCO Australia not respond.
This quote in the article from Leon Brooks, director of CyberKnights, jumped out at me:
"Basically, we're asking SCO to put up or shut up..."
Sounds to me like someone who reads Slashdot/Groklaw/some other community site. Also the following quote:
"As a director of CyberKnights, I personally know and trust several contributors to the Linux kernel, including the original author, Linus Torvalds. As of three days ago, Linus told me that he knows of no substantial code in his Linux kernel source code tree which could possibly be subject to ownership claims by The SCO Group."
These give me an image of someone that is heavily involved in the community and has simply had enough of this crap. Cheers to someone in my home city that is taking some action, I hope that you get the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) sunk right into SCO.
I'd like to say a big thank you to Sam Varghese of the Sydney Morning Herald who wrote this story. He's covered a lot (if not all) of the SCO story and he's given voice to the anti-SCO FUD side, such as Brooks and Groklaw. Sam is Definitely one of the good guys, thanks for all of your help mate.
Short SCO? Do you have any stock in this shit?
I've read so many comments about shorting stock from people who obviously havn't a clue what it means that its not funny.
FYI shorting means to sell stock that you DON'T OWN then borrow it to make delivery and buy it back later to return to the lender (hopefully at a lower price). Stock can also be shorted by the purchase of a put option giving the entitlment (but not obligation) to sell the stock in question at a future date at a price agreed today (you exercise the option only if the actual price on the exercise date is low enough to allow you to simultaneously buy the stock in the market to cover the delivery.
while sco {
wget -O
}
with the most frivolous claims over in the states (warning: coffee is hot).
Actually, the facts of that case are more often that not misrepresented. The truth is, however, that McDonalds served their coffee at a temperature unfit for human consumption (185F or 85C) and the woman in question had third degree burns and required skin grafts. This is the first link I could find from a quick google for it: http://thespleen.com/thelaw/whoscrewsubaby/index.p hp?artID=223
Mind you, the more commonly reported version (woman sued because coffee was hot - how silly!) is very much in McDonald's interests. Conspiracy theory anyone?
That all said, we still get some pretty frivolous cases here in Aust as well - maybe not as many as in the US, but that's possibly just a matter of proportion given our respective populations.
This is what we've been waiting for - SCO to show its ugly face down under. So what do we do now? RING THE ACCC. I just did - the phone is answered immediately by a polite and helpful staff member, who will listen patiently as your explain the situation and detail your grievance and why you may be at risk. Get enough of these complaints and they'll start an investigation. The guy I spoke to even mentioned they were looking at a "pattern" for this matter.
This is our war cry guys. Just pick up the phone. The ACCC wants to act - they're straining at the leash - but they need to show some community support for their actions before they can rip SCO's throat out!
So ring, ring now!!!!
http://www.accc.gov.au/
1300 302 502
Do it! Do it now!
Academic Staff Profile - Allan Fels
Professor Fels was appointed as Professor of Administration at Monash University in 1984 and was the Director of the Graduate School of Management, Monash University from 1985 until 1990 and is now an Honorary Professor in the Faculty of Business and Economics at Monash University.
Professor Fels has degrees in economics and law from the University of Western Australia, and a Ph.D in Economics from Duke University. After leaving Duke he was appointed as a Research Fellow in the Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge, where his Duke Ph.D thesis was published as The British Prices and Incomes Board by Cambridge University Press.
What gave you the impression that he made it up, and then convinced everybody in the media and the government ? Academic fraud like that at his level, and in his (former) role, would be career suicide for him, and extremely very embarresing for the government.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
Jack Messman from Novell wrote to Darl McBride on May 28, 2003:
"We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently, you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected. Finally, we find it telling that SCO failed to assert a claim for copyright or patent infringement against IBM."
Oh that must of hurt! The fact that SCO attempted to get Novell to transfer the copyrights is proof enough that the copyright ownership is in question even in the mind of SCO.
When this is all over McBride will only be able to get job acting as the villian in a melodrama since it is truly the only talent he has shown to date.
Complaint form here
Your statement is indeed true, but picture for a moment that you short 20,000 shares of SCOX at $15.75 per share. In the short run, you gain $315,000 (minus commissions and taxes).
Now, what happens if SCO wins the lawsuit?
More than likely the stock price will begin to climb. If the stock price climbs above 15.75 you're screwed.
If it skyrockets (very unlikely with a company like SCO, but possible), you're really screwed.
The shares you shorted were not your own and you now have to "Buy to Cover" your short. If you shorted at 15.75 and sco is now at 40 you're just a little more than screwed. You've now got a purchase price of $800,000, leaving you $485,000 in the hole.
During the tech bubble, there were a number of persons that shorted stock only to see it rocket from the teens to the hundreds in a day. What if that happens with sco? Lets put sco at $150.00 per. now you're out $2,685,000.00
Shorting can be extremely dangerous, which is why most reputable brokerage firms have very specific criteria that one must meet to be approved for shorting and option trading.
(and yes, I am a stockbroker.)
(nothing in this statement constitues an offer to sell or buy anything. What you do with this information is up to you.)