Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Contractors to Bear Burden if SCO Chases AU Govt

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the gonna-get-messier-before-it-gets-better dept.

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."

11 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. Wonder ... by drizst+'n+drat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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 ...

  2. Threats Alone by millahtime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:Threats Alone by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • 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.
      It's not that surprising really. Businesses have to consider legal threats, even if they appear to be without merit, so they can plan for the worst-case scenarios. IIRC, publically traded companies must also report on the potential impact of lawsuits to their stockholders as well.
    2. Re:Threats Alone by Trigun · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but public companies can sugar coat it. Nowhere in SCO's SEC Filings does it say "IBM could, and most likely will, fucking destroy us!"

    3. Re:Threats Alone by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's really unfortunate though, is that, after the dust has settled and its all over but the shoutin', the lawyers are very seldom ever held accountable for their actions.

      If, say, it turns out that SCO is in fact in league with the devil, and that David Boies joined SCO's cause fully aware of any lies told thus far, "justice" should demand he be punished alongside Darl McBride. What will most likely happen, though, is that Boies will only get to jack his fees by about a million bucks or so.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  3. Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully... by Hanzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. What a great system! by Fortress · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  5. You can only sue the gov't if it lets you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    God you mods are dim!

    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!

  6. Re:Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully by spellraiser · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Pass the Hot Potatoe to Someone Else"

    Well you have learned, young Padawan

    - Master Dan Quale

    --
    I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
  7. This is huge by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  8. SCO defined by RailGunner · · Score: 4, Insightful
    barratry: The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones

    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?