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.
I think that we should all boycott Linux until SCO either loses the case or gives up trying to get licensees. Hit them where it hurts - their pocketbooks.
I have been pwned because my
How much money CAN they trying to salvage from the biggest backfire in recent history? ... ONE company per continent doesn't seem to me like it will pay the legal fees, and not to mention the destroyed reputation...
I'm just waiting for SCO to start sueing themselves.
The good is that we have the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
If SCO calls you, give them the finger and then report them to the ACCC. The Perth company, CyberKnights, lodged a complaint earlier on this month.
If SCO keeps going with trying to get UNIX licenses in Australia they should be prepared to face the ACCC.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
Where women glow and SCO plunders?
I don't know about the rest of you, but to me this seems to be one of the late very desperate moves by the SCO to prove they have a business here.
Lets just take a look at their current stock-price? This url [nasdaq.com] trully shows who's dropping here. It's for sure that SCO now seem desperate, and for a reason. Their business is dying, and so are their case.
"-Who said sit down?!"
-- S. Ballmer @ MSDC 2003.
The previous chair of the ACCC (Allan Fells) wasn't popular with business, which in my view, meant that he must have been doing something right. The current chair (Graeme Samuel) doesn't seem to be so so proactive (or controversial), so they may adopt a wait and see approach. In any case, I am wondering if what the SCO group are attempting to do could best be covered by Fair Trading laws which, in Australia, are administered by the State governments. I guess the anti-competition aspect of SCO's behaviour could give the ACCC jurisdiction.
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
While the lawsuits might not have any result in the long run, and will probably be turned down by the courts (depending-- I know very little about the facts of the case, and have no real pressing reason to find out more), it seems like in the short run, the could be very useful... for Microsoft.
I mean, obviously Microsoft threw in some funding to this group to help sponsor the lawsuits. And they don't nessecarly have to succeed in order to have effect. Defending oneself from lawsuits is expensive and undesirable. Any moderatly to low executives now have more to worry about in any thoughts of migrating to Linux. This seems like it will help Microsoft in the short run.
It seems like the time bidding might be all they need. If they can prevent massive pop-culture defections from Windows until the migration to 64 bit, they would most likely continue the prevelance of windows for a long time to come.
How effective do you think this tatic will be for them.
It's no surpise that SCO is targetting Aussies. Just have a look at their stock.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox
It's going down under!
And prepared to face us.
Give Kieran (SCO AUS CEO) a call or email and let him know what you think (politely)
His voicemail is answering at the moment - 'I am away from my desk' but he will listen to your message as soon he gets back'
Haven't tried his mobile yet....
Kieran O'Shaughnessy
Regional General Manager ANZ
The SCO Group
Level 11, 56 Berry Street
North Sydney NSW 2060
Australia
Tel +61 2 9440 7577
Fax +61 2 9440 7588
Mob 0419 66 00 16
email kierano at sco.com
web www.sco.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Luckily, we have s202 of the Copyright Act which says that it's illegal in Australia to make groundless threats of legal proceedings. That is, you cannot say "buy a licence or I'll sue you" unless you are really in a position to sue and win. We also have a "loser pays winner's costs" rule in litigation, which means that once you've started to sue, you cannot discontinue without being ordered to pay the other side's costs.
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.
"You call *that* a lawsuit? Now *this*, *this* is a lawsuit!"
According to this article in the Salt Lake Tribune, it needs to stay below 6.75 for 20 consecutive days. A little over a dollar to go. Buyback could be used to try to make a bounce, but I would hope that the threat of 6.75 would cause the stock to dip enough in anticipation once it is in the neighborhood and so the buyback is just throwing away more money.
Why wait for a broken system to produce an answer?
Germany told SCO to shut up or bring in some evidence. The aussies should do the same.
It's still a mystery to me how the US legal systems works (or doesn't work)
-- From Denmark
(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.
"SCO Seeks Licenses Down Under"
Sorry Darl, when I told you where you could stick the license, I meant that figuratively.
"Derp de derp."