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.
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?
Holy shit, where the hell did that come from...talk about RTFA with yer eyes open.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
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!
"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?
MOST times the rest of the world shouldn't follow the US.
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.
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.
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