Slashdot Mirror
SCO Seeks Licenses Down Under
WildCode writes "SCO is now targeting Aussies in its continuing Linux licence saga. According to the story, one Aussie organization has already signed up for the licence. The ACCC has no comment at this time but this certainly puts a twist on things as the ACCC were waiting for the results of the lawsuits in the U.S. before making any judgement. Personally I think its time for the ACCC to say to SCO 'wait for the U.S outcomes before taking action here.'" An anonymous reader points to another story at internetnews.com.
Justly or unjustly, rightly or wrongly, they have already paid a heavy price for their underhand techniques, in the form of the mydoom worm. This clearly shows how much anger and resentment the society has against this vulture of an organisation.
Under these circumstances, it is highly unlikely that their legal action will work anywhere in the world. Even if MS pumps more money into SCO to damage Linux, it will not save SCO.
SCO can't kill Linux. What doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger.
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny
Nothing to see here
If IIRC, a Victorian (as in state, not culture) Open Source group appealed to the ACCC about SCO's actions.
But this is direct proof of the problems with our governments adoption of American Policies and Laws. When a US company goes litigious, this country is next in line due to more and more similarities every day.
Aussies - Vote out John Howard. Latham is no angel, but he's way better than Bush's bum buddy Howard.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Sure, but do they know they've signed up? Sneaking a free license onto the end of a contract doesn't exactly make your case, does it, Darl?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I can't see a judge reasonably going through with another SCO case while there is pending litigation with the IBM case. It would make sense that the IBM case would set precedent and all other cases obide by that ruling. That is of course unless new substantial evidence comes out.
I think SCO's had it's day in the media. The last hold out's where the mainstream media and for the most part they've just stopped reporting about it. Their stock is at 1/3 of what it peaked at over the year. Sharply down since demcember (which funny enough is about the same time the judge ordered them to actually show the court offending code). SCO isn't going to end in a bust, but in a fizzle. And that process has been in the works for a few months now.
From the article:
Last week, he was fairly certain at least one sale had been completed, but would not comment on how many more were in the pipeline. "The first sale may well have gone through, but I'm not going to comment on each and every sale," Mr O'Shaugnessy said.
Fairly certain? may well have gone through?
You'd think the SCO Australia-New Zealand general manager would have more of an idea if they'd made a sale.
With all the money Microsoft has raised for them they should be able to afford a decent accounts department. After all, its the only income they're going to see in this country for a while.
$AUD999... doesn't even buy their legal team breakfast.
Of course SCO is going to try its luck in Australia. If our companies are anywhere near as keen to bend over for their American counterparts as our government, SCO will make a fortune down here. After all, our Prime Minister was only too happy to say to Bush "I'll have a ridiculously restricted FTA and with a side order of DMCA please".
(asked by an american)
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
SCO are not the law. On the contrary - it seems their business is extortion. They're certainly guilty of massive copyright infringement - distributing hundreds (thousands?) of software packages to thousands (hundreds?) of customers without a license (since they rejected the GPL).
There should really be a section for "Corporate crime" or something along these lines. Posting this as a YRO makes it appear like the law is on SCO's side.
P.S. Another SCO Linux licensee? We should really start referring to any companies that fall for this scam as SCOXsuckers.
Do SCO have programmers? I allways thought it was som sort of law firm. Well, what do you know...
I could be wrong. I'm always wrong...
I don't think so. Even if the outcome is favorable to SCO in the US (I doubt it, but lets suppouse it just for the sake of the argument). The US court ruling doesn't apply to other independent countries.
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
It would make sense that the IBM case would set precedent and all other cases obide by that ruling.
Take a closer look at SCO's charges. Most of the complaints aren't copyright infringement, but contract violation. SCO isn't just saying "IBM isn't supposed to do that with our code!", they're saying "IBM isn't supposed to do that with their code!"
I personally don't expect either claim to survive a trial, but it's theoretically possible for SCO to lose all of the copyright claims and win some of the contract claims, in which case they'd win some damages against IBM but they probably still wouldn't have any standing to sue third parties.
The insiders are getting wealthy off of stock options and the lawyers are making a bundle off the legal wranglings. Left holding the bag are the stockholders and investors, notably Baystar, whose $50 million investment has lost more than half its original value already. The options are part of the problem, since they dilute the stock, and the loss of reputation and the court case will finish off the rest.
In the end, SCO will lose its court cases as expected and declare bankruptcy. The companies officers and lawyers will walk away with piles of cash and the remaining IP and products (yes, SCO has some IP and products) will be sold off to the highest bidder. But this all looks like it was part of the plan to extract money from a company which could no longer produce a viable business.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====