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."
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!
*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
"(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...
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.
On the Electronic Frontier Foundation site (EFF) site I found http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item =2775 talking how to fight back.
:)
I have not yet found, statistics on how many registered voters are fighting back, what state does these voters come from, etc etc. I think it would be interesting if EFF had that to show what kind of support against SCO exists. Anyone know if this exists? (Please tell me I am blind and cant read
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.
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
}
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.
- 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!
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.
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.