Slashdot Mirror
Contractors to Bear Burden if SCO Chases AU Govt
Peter writes "Contractors are set to bear the burden of SCO legal action if the company chases Australian Government departments. Apparently there are provisions in the Australian Copyright Act which allows the govt to assume IP rights then negotiate a "fair and reasonable" payment for those rights. This is in addition to contract provisions which state that contractors must accept liability for third party IP disputes."
What part of " eminent domain " do you not understand, bitches?!!!
And soon this will all blow over as SCO is turned into a caldera by IBM.
Could this set a precedent with the RIAA hitting up other countries now? I wouldn't expect AU to give in to them. All I can say is that it's not surprising. When will they realise that this will not save their failing business model.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
Tom.
Oh arse
"If legal action is taken against a Commonwealth department or agency through a dispute on third party software, the agency reserves the right to withdraw, leaving the legal battle -- including all costs incurred and all penalties applied -- to the contractor." ... then how many contractors are going to be willing to recommend Linux systems ...
It is truely quite amazing how far a good (by good I mean good at his/her job) lawyer can get on threats alone. I am really quite in awe.
Evolution or ID?
This is supposed to be worrisome? HA
What this article actually says is:
Attention Aus IT departments: GO AHEAD AND BUY LINUX SOLUTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS, OUR LAW SAYS IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM!
Not to mention the fact that this only comes into play if
"Should SCO's claims on Linux be upheld in US courts."
No Australian government agency is going to "Negotiate" with SCO. They're beaurocrats, and given the decision between "Take Action" and "Pass the Hot Potatoe to Someone Else" no sane official is going to do anything but pass it back to the contractors.
It's not only the reasonable and intelligent thing to do, but for once, it's politically expedient.
All the article says, in essence, is:
There appear to be problems with using Linux in gov't, but by law, those problems belong to the contractors. Procurement agents: go right ahead, you're indemnified by federal law.
This is actually good news, although it depresses me how often my sig has been appropriate lately...
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Then the brunt of SCO's impact would be absorbed by the overall community.
Which is nice.
Wow, the govt in AU can appropriate copyrighted material and negotiate payment later? This has a number of great uses outside of getting free M$ software.
Imagine a govt library that has every book, newspaper, magazine, etc in its catalogue, all without paying for it! Or better yet, a govt website with mp3s of every song ever written, all free for the download...the end user might be in trouble though.
Now, wasn't that more interesting than the obligatory SCO bashing in the other posts?
uhh... they keep forgetting one important part ... THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT FIRST.
how can you seek payment on the IP if you havent been able to prove that your code is in linux.
This is one time where the rest of the world should not follow the US lead. Don't be sue happy. It's really no good. Look at us. Does the rest of the world really want to end up like this.
Evolution or ID?
It's a threat, see? The sovereign government of .au just needs to tell SCO that the interests of their Linux users outweighs any private "IP" ownership rights of some sleazy American co.
Sounds like a good way to stick it to those 'merkins to me!
WTF, Mates?
Presuming a contractor is most likely to use one of the main linux distributions, haven't most distros allready provided indemnity against SCOs flight of fancy anyway?
"Pass the Hot Potatoe to Someone Else"
Well you have learned, young Padawan
- Master Dan Quale
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
I'm an independant contractor, and when I sign my contracts (usually through a headhunter-type firm) there are provisions in my contract for assumption of IP violation risks and liability for my work. In other words, I agree to take responsibility for any and all IP violations that arise as a result of my work.
Normally this isn't a big deal, as the gist of these types of clauses is to prevent contractors from plagerising existing code or assuming full responsibility if they do. However, if you are a contractor who is in a position where you have to recommend a software product or hardware vendor, this SCO shit can be a huge black market for open source adoption.
A normal, independant contractor should not and will not assume this type of risk if they are smart. Even if they are sure that SCO's case is bunk (as I am). They probably will lose their contract regardless, and the cost to an independant contractor would be huge.
In other words, good luck finding contractors who willingly will reccommend that a company adopt Linux now.
Thankfully my wife is an IP lawyer, so I'm ready for a fight if need be, but I don't think most contractors are as lucky as me.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
racketeering: To carry on illegal business activities that involve crimes, such as extortion.
extortion: An excessive or exorbitant charge, such as a $600 licensing fee for a dubiously made IP claim.
SCO's illegal activities aside, does SCO, being an American company, even have the ability to sue a foreign government? Where would the case even be tried? Any chance Darl can just get fed to a croc?
I do believe I've hit a sweet spot between "funny" and "troll". Maybe it's good I didn't post that logged in!!!
Lets set Mick Dundee on Darl McDress.
Struth Shelia!
This might be slightly off topic, but the feeling I get is that SCO is floundering financially and all this suing is an attempt to get some cash on the way out. If that's the case, then why bother unless you truely beleive you have a cash cow to milk, since lawyers are not cheap. What ever happend to just bowing out gracefully when you run out of money?
I've discovered a remarkable proof, but this margin is too small to contain it...
From the Article:
It is not clear how the Commonwealth's special treatment under the Copyright Act will be applied should SCO's claims on Linux be upheld in US courts.
Could me a moot point very soon.
No, its bad news.
Its says to contractors "Don't advise anyone to choose OpenSource. You could cost you big $ and major legal hassels".
And if you don't think that government doesn't listen to contractors, you have no idea how they work.
"How should I know that was the wrong decision, the high-paid consultant said it was correct and here is all the supporting documentation!"
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
However, Australia went through a big outsourcing binge a few years ago, and are only now beginning to rebuild their infrastructure. As part of that, they've learned (the hard way) not to outsource mission critical functions. IT is one of these. While there are the occaisional high-profile IBM/Linux contract jobs, most Linux deployments in government are done by the local IT staff. There is no contractor. They just buy hardware and put Linux on it themselves.
MOST times the rest of the world shouldn't follow the US.
It is my opinion that any contracter sufficiently clued in to actually install a Linux system is also sufficiently clued in to say:
... Thought so."
"These SCO guys are running a scam. If they weren't IBM would have simply BOUGHT SCO by now.
"Wait and see how SCO's numerous cases are turning out. SCO is currently fighting a delaying war on all of them. Germany's high court told SCO flatly: 'Shut up liars!'
"So we don't have much to worry about, since IBM is fighting this to the end, to kill this crap once and for all. Meanwhile, how's your uptime? Viruses?
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
As a network admin for a city government somewhere in the USA, I've asked our city attorney's office for a legal opinions for declaration of eminent domain upon a particular software vendor (not SCO) who recently got bought out and the new owner is now causing us considerable grief becasue they no longer want to honor a contract (and we'll have to sue them). His research revealed that according to our state laws, as a city government we cannot declare eminent domain upon, and seize "personal property" (apparently software is deemed "personal property" belonging to the corporate or individual IP owner entity) in our state. We can, however, declare eminent domain upon, and sieze "real property", such as someone's land, house, building, etc. We as a city (our police officers) can only seize personal property when it is used in the commission of a felony crime, as proscribed according to the Civil Forfeiture laws of our state, which parallel the federal civil forfeiture laws.
Standard IANAL disclaimer: (Especially in Australia)
I would guess that it is possible for contractors to band together and get some sort of class action status if SCO starts harassing them?
Realistically, I don't think it would be worth their time for SCO to try and identify small fry overseas contractors using Linux and file claims against them. And larger gov't contractors would have enough legal muscle to defend themselves in court. And SCO is becoming notorious for talking much and doing little.
My rights don't need management.
Funny gets you no karma, but troll and offtopic do!!!
So if posters were rational (and maximizing karma, natch) they'd ignore the original FAQ
"If You Can't Be Deep, Be Funny
-- Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 6/12/00 ",
and heed the NEW FAQ
"Note that being moderated Funny doesn't help your karma. You have to be smart, not just a smart-ass.
-- Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 6/03/03"!
Hence, humor no longer has any place on slashdot. (according to Taco).
>It is my opinion that any contracter sufficiently clued in to actually install a Linux system is also sufficiently clued in to say:
More clued in than with Linux they are clued in to their own personal well-being.
The contractor wouldn't even say that to the Austraian govnm becuase they wouldn't care (they are already safe.)
The contractor would have to really believe that SCO would NEVER get close to winning any legal judgement in the courts. Not a 100% certainty. They would also risk paying a lawyer to defend themselves. Why risk anything?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
lets put it this way.. if SCO wins anything in their legal battles, will you give $100,000 to charity? With no back-out options, no 'yeah, but it was only...' arguments, no excuses whatsoever.
Will you? Of course not, even thought you think SCO's case is complete rubbish. Why would you expect anyone else to do so then?
In the world of business, money is what matters - n-one cares what OS is used at all. The only case for Linux is the cost basis - that it is cheaper (and therefore you can squeeze higher margins, or otherwise win business that would say 'sorry, too expensive'). That's it. Linux, no-one gives a damn. Profit margin, everyone gives a damn.
except you, who have no financial stake in it at all.
While I belive that SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on, I would also say that IBM would never have bought out SCO.
The reason for this is that IBM was once themselves viewed as a monopoly...even so much as to be investigated by the US Gov't...And since SCO owns at least some portion of UNIX as well as making a variant of UNIX, it would be seen as a move to corner the market on UNIX OSes...I'm pretty sure that a few companies like Sun and HP would have something to say about that...
What IBM would do is the same thing they have been doing, keeping the law suit in the courtroom, making very little comments outside of legal procedings and letting SCO dig their own grave.
If you don't realize what we are seeing is that SCO's own comments are comming back to haunt them. The comments that they made at the beginning of the whole thing were way off base and every time someone calls them on it, they look more and more clueless...
No, IBM would have never tried to bury SCO, SCO is doing a good job of that already...
Is that you?
In can be done in the US also, it is called "condemning" something. The government takes it and pays a reasonable fee for it. "Emminent domain" is very similar. Local governments have gotten in the emminent domain departments pretty heavily lately, taking away people's property and handing it back over to developers to build other stuff.
Anyway, it is very common for governments to condemn things which have great public value, most specifically, vaccines. This way it can be offered to everyone at a reasonable price, instead of whatever the market will bear. I mean, imagine the cost of a vaccine for cancer if a private company sold it.
I'm not suprised by either
.......
;-), but do we need to go this far as a country (corporately or as people) to prove we are equal in the arse licking stakes as little Johnny?
a) those loopholes put in place by the aust-govt, as someone else said, it's to stop the goverment
departments being responsible for any feckups of any contractors. And as such is reasonable i guess.
b) SCO is gutter feeding like this. I mean c'mon they've already shot themselves in the foot and the shin and the
c) Australia is not a state of the US, i mean why the hell are we getting so bleeding litigation happy here now?
(o/t) I know Howard is a Blair/Bush lovechild, and wants Bush bad
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
if MS is truly behind SCO, they won't be stopped. Look at what MS has done to the US and EU govt's. they've run roughshod. even the big fine in the EU is resulting in quite possibly the death of samba.
MS will tell AU to fuck off and die, and AU will ask SCO which cheek it is they want smooched.
Anyone remember the Imatec patent lawsuit (dismissed) against Apple, seeking $1.1billion for ColorSync?
you buy into darl's shit? congrats, you're now more stupid than even taco.
Another good example of FUD...
As a contractor you provide a GPL program of sorts. You deliver it as a CD to the agency and therefore is their responsability the rest. BECAUSE THEY are the ones that have the "rights" transmited with the software.
The contractor has no place in the chain whatsoever. And even if he has implemented changes, those changes are of the governamental dep. responsability.
btw... IANAL...
Yes please! I'll take three!
The instant D'ohl's minions send me such paperwork, I become eligible to spend money pounding their miserable claims into the sand. And pound I will. They'll get the legal equivalent of a FSWE from me, and their wandoo is waiting, nicely pre-splintered, in the front yard of our Albany farm. Unfortunately, they're not interested in attacking me, they want someone who'll drop trou and grab their ankles at a moment's notice.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Add to that if SCO tried anything here the ACCC would be on them with a bunch of dobermans...
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
...for eating D'ohl's steak. And then claim that since he couldn't identify which parts of the crocodile were made from his particular steak, he owns the entire crocodile.
Fortunately, a six-meter saltie wouldn't care. The "wookie argument" pales into insignificance alongside the "saltie death-roll argument".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
SCO has ceased making simple minded threats here due to complaints to the ACCC (competition watchdog) from various sources, including local Linux advocates.
If found to be breaching the trade practices act, SCO can be fined millions of dollars, like the multi-vitamin industry was a few years ago.
Extortion is an even worse crime, and if they're found to making threatening demands which are clearly illegal, directors can be sent to jail if they ever come to Australia.
If the case is upheld (which it wont be), US results of law cases is just common law to us, not a final opinion. SCO still has to work within our copyright act, which is different (for now) than the US copyright regime.
For example, Sony lost the 'right' to enforce regionalization on PS2 and ipso facto DVDs through an action the ACCC took against them in another copyright case as an amicus curae.
SCO are just fudding here. Unfortunately, barratry was removed as an offence a few years ago, but realistically, it should have been left on the books.
Andrew
Andrew van der Stock
Come on, this isn't news. Anything SCO isn't news. They're going to lose and then they'll disappear and 2 or 3 years from now, nobody will remember them, so please, can we just turn all the noise off. Contractors in New Zealand are gonna be just fine.
Great news for scox, bad news for redhat, and everybody else. In case you didn't know: rhat sued scox to have scox stop saying that scox has grounds to sue linux end-users. Scox filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that scox never intended to sue anybody. That was about six months ago. Since then, scox claims to be suing at least two linux end users, and plans to sue many more. The judge said, scox can say whatever scox wants - lehman act doesn't matter.
copied from yahoo scox board
by: poncewattle (44/M/USA) 04/06/04 09:06 pm
Msg: 120924 of 120944
4/6/04 34 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying [8-1] motion to Dismiss; case is stayed pending resolution of Utah litigation between SCO and IBM; parties shall each submit a letter every 90 days as to
the status of the Utah litigation; if the Utah litigation is not proceeding in an orderly and efficient fashion the court may reconsider the stay ( signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson )
copies to: cnsl. (rd) [Edit date 04/06/04]
4/6/04 -- Per Court's Order of 4/6/04 the following motions are moot:
mooting [30-1] motion To Supplement the Record, mooting [17-1] motion For Enlargment of Time to Respond to Pltf's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents and Things, mooting [15-1] motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (rd)