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."
finally someone got their act together, lets hope others take heed.
sorry officer, left my sig in my other computer.
SCO: Australian for fraud.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
Maybe this has been answered already, but does anyone know whether SCO's board or management can face criminal charges if all these allegations are proved unsubstantiated?
...to win the hearts and minds of Australian authorities. Linus poses in a speedo in .au, and his popularity there surges! Governments rush to his defence, fighting off evil SCO lawyers for Linus! If Darl wants to get support, he'll have to do the same ; strip and get dunked.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
why is SCO's stock still at 15? even after red hat joined the user protection game..
IANAK (Kangaroo), but I've talked to Aussies, and they say the ACCC can really sink its teeth into companies that stir it up.
I think SCO is misunderestimating the tolerance for stupid circus antics from big business overseas. It seems like we'll pander to them for awhile and play along with their stupid games, then frequently let them scurry away, but other countries' governments and court systems aren't so forgiving. Push them, they'll push back. Fortunately, it looks like SCO is the little dorky kid and now he's trying to shove the bullies that are twice as big.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
And I quote "received a dozen queries since Australian pricing for the licences was announced this morning"
Sure something like
"You do know where you can shove that license - don't you?" (Said with australian accent of course)
*wild-eyed gentleman in khakis and funny hat creeps through the underbrush*
*whispering* Now, we're about to see the rare American FUD-monkey! It seldom shows its face down under, but it's very dangerous when unprovoked and somehow convinced that it owns, well...everything.
*DARL hops out from behind a bush* Crikey! That'll take your arm clean off!! *he shoots a tranquilizer dart at the DARL*
*high pitched shrieking ensues. the call of the DARL sounds remarkably like the words "pump-and-dump" repeated over and over*
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
If you buy SCOX and short it you can then sue Darl McBride for driving the price of your shares down. There was acase about a month ago where the investors shorted their shares, made loads of cash and then sued the board for causing the stock price to drop. Only in America.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
This is a great thing, but yet again, the lessor if two evils. Slashdotters have not said nice things about Australia's ACCC, but they DO have teeth, and put up with no shit. SCO has just taken on a very dangerous shark that will eat them and spit out the bones.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Is anyone keeping a tally of how much moolah SCO has invested in the court system right now? Just to think, all of that MS money is going to feed hungry lawyers, all over the world! Darl should be proud. Also, it will be interesting to see how many simultaneous lawsuits it takes to kill the SCO Legal Team (also known as SCO). There's one from Austrailia, one in the UK(?), all the stuff between SCO and IBM, SCO v. Red Hat, SCO vs. Everyone Who Wishes to Smite SCO, et cetera...
"(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...
And especially now at election time such political issues crop up as whether the Republican laissez faire approach to business or the Democrat central control approach to business is more desirable.
Yeah, I know everyone's more interested in Dean making an ass out of himself in that speech after the Iowa caucus, but the longterm health of the American economy is much more fundamentally important than some passing gasbag.
The story is about Australia, but since Oz is perhaps the most culturally similar country to America (barring Canada, of course) it makes sense to really consider what kinds of steps are necessary to prevent fraud in business. Should the approach that Americans are taking now which is primarily a Republican-style approach of letting private companies duke it out in court and leaving the arbitration to judges the right way to go? Or is the Australian method, similar to the approach approved by Democrats, of forcing the company's books open by law the right thing?
I'm torn. Both approaches are relatively unsatisfactory and have repercussions which may be unintended. Pesonally I lean towards the Republican position of leaving private entities to fight amongst themselves with as little governmental intervention as possible.
I have been pwned because my
A dozen enquiries, the article says. I'd like to know who's asking about this IP "licensing" plan, since I'm thinking of selling the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which I inherited via my uncle, and was looking for someone in Australia to buy it.
From the CyberKnights page:
"...we are currently exploring workable methods for becoming big while remaining small...
Well, you could always dredge up some code you wrote years ago, grep through an OSS source tree until you find a partial match and then issue ridiculous demands for outrageously expensive licenses...
Australia has a more conservative legal system than the US. Here, the ACCC can hit SCO pretty hard if they do not substantiate their claims. It is even possible that they could bring the SCO directors up on criminal charges. The only problem is that it takes a small company with big balls like CyberKnights to champion the claim before the ACCC will get involved.
Not that I'm feeling sorry for McBride et al. I just can't imagine how bad this will get for SCO if during the course of legal manuvering this turns into a criminal case and they're convicted by two sovereign nations of this farce of a white collar crime. What are they going to do? take turns and alternate between sitting in US and ANZ jails? Seriously, folks, who gets to decide which punishment will be administered by who and where?
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
I visited the CyberKnights web page which was yellow on black. I'm in a brighly lit room with a bright LCD screen -- now I have to wait for my corneas to grow back.
Caller: "You know that Linux licence you're peddling?"
SCO: "The one where you pay us loads, and carry on as usual?"
Caller: "We have a better idea."
SCO: "Yes..."
Caller: "We give you the finger, and you go back to Utah."
A Kiwi.
As Americans sit and watch other countries do what we should have done 4 months ago, I can only shake my head in dismay at all the money we throw at lawyers to settle something that any moron could figure out.
This isn't Roe v. Wade, it's a simple verification of the code, no ethical delimas to deal with here.
The connection between SCO and a Kiwi:
:v)
They can both shove their bills up their arse.
Vik
I work for a telco in NZ; one of our partners received an email yesterday from SCO as a heads-up. I'm actively trying to contact our finance and legal departments to make sure we don't pay any invoices. We will be a target: there are only three big telcos here, they'll be sure to hit all of us.
-- Your mother uses Emacs.
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.
... As the SCO *Nix saga continues. Will IBM sleep with Novell? What will the wicked stepmother Microsoft think? Will Linus ever find love despite his arranged marriage to Kernella? Does SCO have the power to usurp all of the twon of Port *Nix? The answers to all this and more on tomorrow's "The Frivolous and the Greedy"
Brought to you by a cheap, self-loving plug...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
It isn't to increase the value of the company's stock. It is to maximize shareholders' value just like the parent poster said. There is a big difference there. The value of a company's stock can be affected by a myriad of external factors. The management and directors of a company have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to act in a manner that will maximize shareholder value.
Why do you think that is wrong? That is saying that it is not the management's responsibility to fatten their wallet at the expense of the shareholders. It is this that should protect us from guys like Dennis Kozlowski. Publicly-held companies exist to make money. If the goal of a company is not to make money then they should operate as a not-for-profit and reap the tax benefits.
I'll bet SCO has had some inquiries. But more along the lines of: "Where in the fsck do you get off?"
--
$tar -xvf
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 all the publicity this company will get, which will then probably turn into more business for them, one has to wonder why more small companies don't go after SCO. In effect do the same thing SCO has; fill the press with your name.
sig: [insert something clever here]
Leon runs Cyberknights and is a major figure in Australian Open Source circles.
Basically, people listen to what Leon has to say here... in fact we pretty much hang on every word. He's also a very formidable geek.
SCO won't last long in Australia - the ACCC will be being hounded as we speak, and will have to act soon. Its pretty cut and dry when referencing Australian copyright law, and Id expect the ACCC to pounce on SCO within weeks.
Ask a Shuttle astronaut.
As originally designed and flown (they may have changed it since), in the Shuttle toilet the, ah, excrement is supposed to hit the, um, rotary impeller blades.
(Yes, really. Actually called slinger blades -- slings the stuff against the walls of the waste compartment which is then (well, after the user is done) vented to vacuum to dry the stuff. Problem is/was, the dried stuff has zero structural integrity and a couple days into the mission you end up with a fine brown powder floating everywhere...)
-- Alastair
The primary duty is not to increase the value of the stock, but to maximize shareholder value. There's a big difference, even though the value of stock is one of the best proxies for determining shareholder value. If the duty were to simply maximize the value of the stock, then we would see a lot more gaming of the system than we actually do. (We do see a lot of focus on short-term gains, but that's not the same as gaming the system.) We would also see tremendously more lawsuits against corporations.
In any case, the duty is not limited to the boards of publicly traded companies. The boards of ALL companies that have stock (i.e., corporations) have this duty. It's just that publicly traded stock has an obvious apparent value; the stock of privately held companies is more difficult to value, if only because you have to guess.
Australians aren't as "sue happy" as Americans. I've heard of people suing - and winning - with the most frivolous claims over in the states (warning: coffee is hot). Such cases would be laughed out of court over here.
If SCO started lawsuits in Australia based on their unsubstantiated claims and yet to be revealed evidence, Aussie judges would dismiss them and tell them to come back with a clue.
I ran a benchmark on my quantum computer, now I can't find it anywhere!
It figures that it'd finally get tried in Austraila...
...because Darl knows his only chance is a kangaroo court!
Ba dump bump! I'll be here all week, be sure to try the buffet.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Oh SWEET!
Does this mean that, when Darl and co. are found guilty of being lying bastards, that someone gets to kick him in the ass with a boot?
Now thats something i'd pay $699 for!
- Why on earth would I buy a license for Linux when all you've offered me is unsubstantiated claims?
- What part of the legal terms fraud and barratry do your lawyers not understand?
- What makes you so sure you're going to get away with this?
- Exactly what kind of a game do you think you're playing, mister?
- Last week you were trying to sell me some bridge. This week you want to sell me a license for Linux. Is there no end to this madness?
- What! No Lube?
- Et Tu, Brute?
And, of course, the ever popular:Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
it's not wrong in and of itself, but let's look at Enron as an example. They certainly maximized shareholder value for a while there. Unfortunately they acted illegally and certainly immorally in the process.
It's a catch-22. In the 70s, there was the belief that the board and corporate executives weren't really doing all they could to maximize shareholder value, so they started paying them heavily in stock options and incentives. The result has been many executive who will do whatever it takes, including breaking the law, if it makes the shareholders happy. And if they do manange to increase stock price enough, they can afford enough lawyers that their misdeeds go unpunished, and you might even make enough money and enough campaign contributions that the feds could change their mind about prosecuting you.
Basically the problem is that companies are run by humans; usually very clever and creative people. They found they can get rich by a little bend here, a loophole there, and a tiny little bit of fraud over here. Since everyone is happy when shares go up, a whistleblower is ostracized since they might hurt the value of the stock!
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!
...cuz right now some poor server admin down under has probably just roasted his eyeballs out after looking directly into the plasma ball that used to be a webserver.
The server's link is being pounded into the sand by the traffic already, and we've not peaked yet. And there are other sites hosted there. )-:
Please lay off that link for a few days!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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
That reminds me of my first dinner in Italy. We had just pulled into port in Naples. I was with 8 other Marines as we sat down to dinner at a hole in the wall restaurant. Being our first port call on this little cruise, several asked if they had Budweiser. I pointed out that they were about to pay imported prices for a bud light when they could get something European at a local price.
Heeding my advice, they all immediately switched to Heineken and I gave up trying.
t
SCO may indeed be in trouble, but notice that their carefully worded claims say that Linux contains their intellectual property, which you need a license for. They do not claim that their copyrights have been violated. In fact, since intellectual property doesn't have any legal meaning, they aren't claiming anything at all.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Cerveza Caguama, now that's the stuff. Fucking impossible to find, though.
SCO ANZ didn't make this particular standover play until the 19th, at which point I was on a Qantas 737-400 over the Nullarbor somewhere, out of contact with Linus and next port of call at least 2000km from Adelaide.
But yes, Linus did say that on the previous Friday, and not just to me, to a bunch of people standing outside Elder Hall discussing the OCG miniconf's outcome. No press release, Linus is like that.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They're trying it on in NZ, too.
The NZOSS has put together this summary of the issues and is requesting a copy of the license, but not telegraphing its plans so blatantly (ya gotta love Kiwis).
Check out http://WWW.SCO.CO.NZ for a larf.
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.)
SCO Australia Contact Information:
:D
Kieran O'Shaughnessy
kierano@sco.com
General Email - anz_info@sco.com
Tel: +61 2 9455 0500
Web: http://au.sco.com
Have Fun
In this article SCO is already getting the finger from a couple of big New Zealand Linux users.
Massey University has deployed a 132 CPU Helix supercomputer running RedHat Linux 7.3 at its Albany campus in Auckland and would be expected to pay $NZ171,192.61 for the right to continue using its operating system. The director of parallel computing, Chris Messon, says that's not going to happen. "We have no plans to pay off SCO."
And Weta Digital...
Operations manager Milton Ngan says any move to pay the licence would be seen as capitulation and Weta isn't about to start down that road. "We won't make any moves till we see what the rest of the industry does. We're a small company a long way from SCO so we'll try to stay here out of sight."
Actually, I find Nastro Azzuro's an excellent refreshment after a hot day's traipsing round Roman ruins. Italy has enough German tourists that it's paid them to learn how to make a reasonable beer.
You must remember that on the world stage, America is very small. The biggest problem that Kiwi's have to deal with is the Australians.
The number one objective for any decent Kiwi, on meeting an Australian is to put them in their place - forget American politics, SCO, Microsoft, or any such minor problems.
However, should any other Tin-Pot country, such as America, were to attack Australia. Then, by mutual aggreement, Australia and New Zealand would reform the ANZAC brigades to see off the external threat - in fact, the remaining New Zealanders not already in Australia, would go to Australia to defend it.
Be warned. Rubbishing Australians is the sole perogative of the Kiwi's - if anyone else joins in, we reserve the right to jointly attack them!
As for the poster I'm replying to, he should applogise and refrain from attacking his betters. This means he is free, and encouraged, to pick on Bush, Blair, or any of their minions.
To return to topic: there is more truth in the above statements than seen in any of SCO's press releases...
That being said, I await the day that I get an invoice from them to submit to my attorney.
This sig no verb.