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."

24 of 488 comments (clear)

  1. SCO: by TexVex · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO: Australian for fraud.

    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
  2. ACCC by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:ACCC by Snad · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  3. Re:criminals by mschoolbus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they would go to a federal "pound me in the ass" prison.

    We could only hope.

  4. next week, on Animal Planet... by Schwartzboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    *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
  5. It's not just the ACCC - section 202 may apply by siliconbunny · · Score: 5, Informative
    Section 202 of the Australian Copyright Act, headed "Groundless threats of legal proceedings", is also a fun tool.

    "(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...

    1. Re:It's not just the ACCC - section 202 may apply by femto · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is probably why SCO didn't explicity threaten legal action in their press release.
      "When asked why the media release which provided this information had not specifically told commercial Linux users - whom O'Shaughnessy said were SCO's target - to take out a licence or else face the consequences, ..." - from the SMH Article

      The Australian Copyright Council advises people to be very careful when alleging copyright infringement, as it is easy to fall foul of defamation laws or section 202 of the copyright act.

      "In some circumstances, letters claiming that someone has infringed copyright can result in problems under the law of defamation or under section 202 of the Copyright Act (which prohibits the making of groundless threats of legal proceedings). Therefore, it is advisable to have a letter of demand drafted by a lawyer." - Australian Copyright Council
      Consequently, SCO's press release would probably have been vetted by a lawyer.

      Unfortunately Mr O'Shaughnessy may have blown it with his unvetted response to the SMH journalist (continuation of the first quote)

      "... he said "in effect, this is what is being said." " - from the SMH Article
      So there you go, straight from the mouth of the boss of SCO Australia. Pay up or we sue you. Does this make him personably liable for defamation or prosecution under section 202? Does anyone who actually knows what they are talking about want to comment?
    2. Re:It's not just the ACCC - section 202 may apply by siliconbunny · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually, I'm an IP lawyer in a major Australian firm, which is why I raised the issue of s 202. (Note, these opinions/statements are not my employer's, just mine. And they're not legal advice to be relied on, either.)

      The way it works is that a person who receives a groundless threat can bring an action for a declaration that the threats are unjustified, and the burden of proof in that action is on the threatening party to show that the threat was justified--ie that "the acts in respect of which the action or proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of copyright".

      However, you can't evaluate whether SCO could be in trouble under the section without knowing exactly what they said to the person who would bring the action under it. I'm not sure that the SMH article taken alone would be enough (or at least, I wouldn't rely on it, as it is sufficiently vague on whether legal action is threatened against a particular person).

      Hence why I was wondering out loud if (being ignorant of this provision of Australian law, or just gung-ho) SCO might have tripped up over the section--I couldn't say for sure unless anyone can supply a copy of everything sent or said to Cyber Knights (or anyone else for that matter).

      As for defamation, it varies a great deal by state, but generally you have to say/imply things to lower a natural person's reputation in the eyes of others. Nothing in the article suggested that to me. Ditto a claim for common law fraud--it's hard to prove at the best of times. No chance here.

      Me, I'd be looking hard at section 52 of the Trade Practices Act, which prohibits corporations engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. Based on the "evidence" I've seen so far, an assertion that SCO has the entitlement to require anyone to take a licence from them would have to be questionable at best, or outright false at worst. Best part is for this context, even innocent deception (eg maker honestly mistaken about what they say) is caught, let alone reckless indifference to the truth. A section 52 action would probably stand or fall depending on whether SCO loses or wins in the USA.

  6. Re:criminals by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes, in theory they have probably broken several laws. In practice, it is VERY difficult to prove that they weren't just trying to maximize shareholder value and make the most of their interpretation of the intellectual property they think they own. Unfortunately, being stupid and being wrong aren't themselves crimes, and showing that they knowingly and intentionally violated securities regulations (a la pump and dump), or purgered themselves in court or something that could lead to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison is very difficult. Witness the Enron case - only by securing cooperation and testimony from some mid- to high- level poeple are they able to make a case that the top level folks were anything other than tremendously stupid and misled.


    That being said, our high standards of evidence are something we should be proud of. I just think that the stupidity/ignorance defense should be done away with at a corporate executive/director level. We need the equivalent of Sarbannes-Oxley for ALL corporate behavior, not just the financials, since there are other kinds of corporate fraud damaging the economy and the public trust in America, beyond misleading 10K submissions.

  7. Give Darl a call by Anaxagor · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

  8. Conservative legal system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:about time by homboe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 :)

  10. Argh, booby-trapped web page by Kris_J · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  11. Re:But.. by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just think of the stock market as a giant slot machine where you need a broker to pull the handle. Pure unadulturated greed is what keeps it alive. Investing in SCO is a excelent example of this greed. Gotta make a gazillion buckaroos before the end of the day. Like all gambling addicts, the invester is probably trying to recoup their losses from other investments. I'm sure some will make out very nicely.

    --
    What?
  12. Proof of lawerying industry weighing america down by 3cents · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. The bills are on the way by Gleenie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  14. Quote from Brooks, SMH author by hsoom · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. Re:Conspiracy by krusadr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 /dev/null http://www.sco.com?sco=litigious%20bastards
    }
  16. We'd laugh at SCO if they tried it here. by adept256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:We'd laugh at SCO if they tried it here. by mister_tim · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  17. Re:criminals by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unfortunately, being stupid and being wrong aren't themselves crimes

    Otherwise, our prez would be in jail [duck]

  18. Re:Let's get all the one-liners out at once... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    It figures that it'd finally get tried in Austraila...

    ....wait for it....

    ...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.
  19. This is your cue, Australians ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

  20. Very insightful comment by Novell by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.