Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Says They'll Sue A Linux User Tomorrow

Posted by timothy on from the good-cons-take-gusto dept.

Xenographic writes "InfoWorld is reporting that SCO intends to sue a Linux using company. Ordinarily, this would not be newsworthy, as they have not followed through on past threats. However, this time, they have given themselves a concrete deadline--tomorrow. While they claim that it will be one of the "top 1,000" companies, they apparently have yet to decide which company to actually sue. Perhaps they need more practice playing darts?" Reader Fished links to CNET's coverage.

8 of 606 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Perhaps by Leme · · Score: 4, Informative

    Doubt it. He says that they plan on suing a company that is neither Internet Service Providers nor technology companies. I'd say that Google would be defined as a technology company.

  2. How the lawsuit is going to go in court ... by NZheretic · · Score: 4, Informative
    Since 1994, both Caldera ( which only changed its name to The SCO Group in 2003 ) and the Santa Cruz Operation ( The original SCO which changed its name to Tarentella ) have accepted, profited from and redistributed copyrighted source code from hundreds of developers under the terms of the GPL license.
    http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html
    The SCO Group has failed to put forward ANY substantial legal theory why the SCO Group should not be obligated to abide by the terms of the GPL.
    http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/sco/sco-without-fear .html
    The SCO Group obligations under the GPL has been reiterated and reinforced in the legal positions of IBM, Redhat and Novell in their respective cases against the SCO Group.

    It is a criminal offense to claim, with fraudulent intent, that you have a copyright if you do not. The SCO Group does *NOT* hold the copyrights to the UNIX source code. Novell has *NOT* transfered the title for the works that the SCO Group fraudulently filed for copyright in 2003. The SCO Group do not have the right to sue anybody for violation of copyright works without the assent of the title holder.

    The SCO Group claims the right to sue for work in standard UNIX and POSIX interfaces that AT&T and Novell granted full rights to use royalty free in perpetuity for the ISO, ANSI and FIPS federal standards.

    The SCO Group's contract claims against IBM and others based upon the AT&T license in respect to rights of so called derivative works is in direct contradiction to evidence presented to the SCO Group by Novell.

    The SCO Group though the press and SEC filings, has bolstered the share price of the SCO Group based upon demonstrably false claims to the contrary of above points 1,2 and 3. The SCO Group CEOs and legal agents were notified by Novell and IBM *before* making these false claims and presenting them as fact. The actions of the SCO Group must be in violation of several SEC regulations.

    So how is the lawsuit going to go if it gets to court?
    Eben Moglen's Harvard Speech
    http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/p.cgi/speakers.html

    The Transcript
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402260 03735733

    The McBrides, jointly -- I feel sometimes as though I'm in a Quentin Tarantino movie of some sort with them [laughter] -- the McBrides have failed to distinguish adequately between dicta and holding.

    I do not like Eldred against Ashcroft. I think it was wrongly decided. I filed a brief in it, amicus curiae, and I assisted my friend and colleague Larry Lessig in the presentation of the main arguments which did not, regrettably, succeed.

    Oddly enough, and I will take you through this just enough to show, oddly enough, it is the position that we were taking in Eldred against Ashcroft, which if you stick to holding rather than dicta, would be favorable to the position now being urged by Mr. McBride. What happened in Eldred against Ashcroft, as opposed to the window dressing of it, is actually bad for the argument that Mr. McBride has been presenting, whichever Mr. McBride it is. But they have not thought this through enough.

    Let me show you why. The grave difficulty that SCO has with free software isn't their attack; it's the inadequacy of their defense. In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this. "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get b

  3. Re:A little confusing... by hendridm · · Score: 4, Informative

    > And SCO is suing for three billion.

    $5 billion

  4. You're safe tomorrow unless... by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...you are already a SCOG customer. From the CNET article:

    "The first target will be a company that has a Unix license from SCO already, giving SCO some contractual leverage in the case. McBride said. In addition, the suit will involve copyright infringement claims."

    Darl continuies to make it obvious that the worse possible decision a company can make is do business with him.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  5. Re:What the hell do they think they're doing? by matt_sinclair · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's even a term for persistent incitement of litigation. It's called 'barratry'. In most jurisdictions, it's illegal. Check it out: barratry

  6. Re:Big surprise by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Informative

    >>Do I detect a pattern here?

    Yeah, they did the same thing the last quarter also. That's when they sent the threat letters. Just a stunt to draw attention away from scox gushing red ink.

    And it works, it works like a charm.

  7. Re:A little confusing... by debrain · · Score: 4, Informative

    And the corporation's lawyers will respond, "Sorry, we bought our Linux from (insert distributor here). You have take your claim to them, and you will receive any compensation you might be due directly from them for selling SCO IP without a valid license. Piss off."

    The deference argument might not work because of privity. In their mystery world, SCO has a relationship with the particular fortune 500 company, because it is violating SCO's copyright. SCO does not necessarily have a relationship with the distributor. SCO has a right to sue them, too, but Linux distributors are not deep pockets or headline grabbers. A property holder, and similarly in the case of constructive property like copyright, can claim any infringement against any violator, in intent or negligence.

    This permits people who copy movies to be as liable as people who possess bootlegs. It is the use (or presumed use) which is violated, and that use often flows from presence. In other words, SCO will say "look, that Acme Co. is violating our property rights by benefitting from their use of Linux." It is possible that it's more likely that you can distribute Linux than you can actually use it, but both are copyright infringements in the absence of permission (as explicitly set out in the GNU GPL), and the "use" of Linux is possibly an ancillary claim of "unjust enrichment" to the user in addition to restitution.

    A half-ass analogy would be a movie theatre that rents a DVD at blockbuster and puts it through a projector to make money off of it in public sales, directly contrary to the copyright stipulations on the movie that prohibit redistribution, sale, or profit without prior written authorization. The copyright holder/MPAA isn't going to go after Blockbuster, who legally (or illegally if it's bootlegged) distributed the copyright material, but rather the theatre which also violated the rights. The theatre has (a) potentially deeper pockets, (b) directly, and intentionally or negligently infringed the rights of the property holder, and (c) no means of indemnification through the distributor. The corollary is that there is no onus upon the distributor to validate a use of the purchaser.

    In other words, if the use of Linux is part of the claim, not just possession, the Fortune 500 company has no indemnification through the distributor. Unless there was an explicit indemnification clause in the distributor's license (GPL? BSD? etc.) or contract, it is unlikely, or I'd go so far as to say impossible, to pass the buck to them.

    The Fortune 500 company is almost certain to be a valid target of SCO's claim. Mind you, being a valid target does not validate the claim itself!

  8. Re:Suing oneself by k_head · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's a ridiculus collection of non sequitors.

    If a company gets sued they will hire lawyers. If they want to prevail they will hire lawyers with experience in the particular area of law.

    A fortune 1000 company would certainly hire a competent law firm to defend it.

    BTW it would be lawyers who present arguments not the company itself.

    --
    The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.