Slashdot Mirror
SCO Targets UK Firms
indierockboy writes "It seems that SCO is bringing its dodgy 'Linux licenses' over here to the UK. Vnunet.com reports that SCO's expansion of their 'Linux licensing programme' makes legal action against UK users 'imminent'. Does anyone know if the ongoing cases in the USA can be used as a defense? Since SCO has yet to prove anything..."
AFAICT this isn't news. This is an old article that's surfaced again, possibly courtesy of Google News.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
'same' article from 14 Jan 2004
Slashdot editors might want to remember that January comes first, so it's pretty much a year old.
It wouldn't be cost effective for each company to sue SCO individually. But a class-action lawsuit could be quite effective.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Where he reiterates the same FUD. Heck, he only took an old story, modified it to look different, and posted it again.
Smells fishy to me, if you ask me.
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
No they're not O.o Where in God's name did you hear that? Anyway ontopic I haven't been following this story, at all, but from what I can see they say they own Linux? HAH!
):
As others have pointed out, the Peter Williams article linked to in the article was actually written in January and it's just a vnunet.com fuckup that it's now showing with a December date.
If you want some fresh SCO info, here's the December 21 order that dismissed the remaining claim in SCO's complaint against DaimlerChrysler and thereby closed the case. Here's a write-up that includes information about some rules of Michigan's appeals court.
No, in the UK the Judge has the powers to distribute costs as he sees fit, so its not a 'loser pays all', the two sides could very well be made to pay for their own costs. Indeed there has been cases in the past where the loser has been awarded costs, which means the winner gets to pay both sides costs (very rare cases where either the Government or a large corporation was the side to bring the case and win against individuals or such). In the case where costs are awarded, the side which doesnt get to pay has nothign to worry about, as they are not liable for their lawyers costs (tho they may be liable for a percentage, depending on what the Judge awards, it isnt a straight all or nothing), so the Lawyers must persue the other party for costs.
We don't really have class-action lawsuits in the UK (a number of ongoing lawsuits can be dealt with at the same time if a "group litigation order" is made, but this is rather different).
Autozone?
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Nope.
Autozone = unauthorized use of SCO libraries in porting to Linux. It wasn't over Linux itself.
Everyone sued so far is a customer of SCO and has had a contract with them. There has not been a single Linux user not previously associated with SCO sued by SCO.
The English/Welsh legal system has the idea that the defendant can counter sue and claim all costs if they win. I think that if SCO takes the same course of action in the UK they will very quickly end up bankrupt. The English\Welsh courts also want evidence up front before the case is considered. The Scottish courts will be even harder for them as they have some concept of 'what the average person would understand to be the right thing to do', so it is not just case law but case law with a lot of common sense throw in and SCO logic thrown out. IANAL but I have been involved with a few cases in the UK and learnt to say 'please, sue me :)' because it is so much easier to defend than sue in the UK. In the UK you really want to be sure that you have a valid case or you will end up bankrupt. The courts often award full costs so the person suing has to pay all the defendants costs if the defendant wins, which means that they can counter sue for anything they like at your expense. And before anyone says that I have that one wrong, I have done so and because my lawyer was sure of the case he did not charge me anything because he knew he could get his fee from the costs (that was in Scotland though and England/Wales did not allow lawyers to accept no win no fee until recently, but they do now).
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I'm not a lawyer, but Judge Chabot is, and she's the one who signed her name below the sentence "THIS ORDER DISPOSES OF THE LAST PENDING CLAIM AND CLOSES THIS CASE", so I think we can take her word for it that the case is "closed".
She only dismissed the last remaining claim in the case without prejudice. The bulk of SCO's complaint was dismissed with prejudice back in August.
That provision only pertains to legal costs incurred after August 9, and only to costs pertaining to the last remaining claim (the "timeliness" issue). It does not apply to the next likely step in the litigation, which is an appeal by SCO of the August order that dismissed the other issues.
This is all covered on the page I linked to.
Just as a point of information, people are writing as if there is one unified 'UK' legal system. There isn't. Scots law (in Scotland) is completely different from English law (England and Wales) - not even the same basic legal principles apply.
I think Northern Ireland is different again but I'm not certain of that. The Isle of Man certainly has a separate legal system, as do the Channel Islands and other bits and bats that people think of as part of the United Kingdom but which technically are not. Even within Scotland, Orkney and Shetland use old Norse ('Udal') law for some civil matters which is different from Scots law.
SCO are almost certainly talking about bringing action in the English courts against Linux users in England. But, as we've seen before many times, SCO talks a lot about bringing these actions. They don't actually do it. And given their 4th Quarter license revenues have dropped $10M to $120K over the past year, even the threats aren't working any more.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
"The decision of the European Court of Justice is now binding for a final rule to be made by British courts... With the ruling, the court finally declared that retailers in the European Union need the approval of the trademark owner to buy merchandise outside the EEA "[e.g. a cheap country like the USA]" and sell them at prices below the suggested prices of the manufacturer or its authorised agents." which sucks for consumers, but is good for trademark holders, since it means that even if they sell goods (such as jeans) they can control what other people do with them, e.g. stop them from being sold too cheaply.
It seems the UK has been more on the consumer/retailer side that the manufacturers side over time "The golden age of supermarkets began in 1964, with the abolition of Retail Price Maintenance - the mechanism that had allowed manufacturers and suppliers to dictate their prices."
So it looks like creeping IP law has reverted a conscious decision by the elected government that had stood for 40 years.
So there have been many many dodgy decisions (and many good ones) by English courts over the centuries, but it seems this one was not their fault.