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..."
Knowing a lawyer, the legal system in the UK doesn't put up with the shit the American system does. It is possible for legal events in other countries to influence our law. My friend cited a case regarding a patent dispute where the patent had been filed in the EU and prior art was being shown to exist in the EU. However, they'd already filed a patent in the US convering that technology and that pre-dated the european prior art. They won the case.
Returning to topic, SCO have to tread really carefully here. Firstly, if the British courts find their claim to be baseless that surely more ammunition for a motion to have the cases in the States dismissed.
Secondly, we have some pretty strict rules about business practices. They could find themselves in hot water with the regulators if they're shown to be effectively extorting people.
Thirdly, they have the EU to deal with. Lots of EU countries are rolling linux out. For this reason, they automatically have many powerful enemies who will be looking for ways to silence SCO. Microsoft learned the EU has teeth. So will SCO.
Simon
Aren't slander/libel cases a LOT easier to win in the U.K.?
Mr. McBride better be careful what he says about Linux over there...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
that's the big question.. have SCO learned anything from all the fun and games in the States? Are they going to try for a bit of cheap court-cred by going for someone small, or are they going to take on a titan again?
The biggest users of GNU/Linux must be the banks here, and the likes of RBOS/HBOS/HSBC are an obstacle on the same scale as IBM & Daimler-Chrysler.. Way, way deep pockets, and more lawyers than even SCO could possibly envision..
In fact, given how things have worked out so far, and given who they would be up against in that sort of case, they would have trouble finding a competent solicitor to represent them. When it comes to crushing upstarts, the banks have been doing this longer than anyone...
You call this mr. Peter Williams an Author??
:-)
Ah well, if VNUnet is woth their salt he'll be looking for a new (Microsoft?) job before the year is over.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
That in the U.S. the burden of proof in a libel case falls on the person claiming libel to prove the claim unraesonable or untrue, whereas in the U.K. the burden of proof is on the accused to prove the claim true.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
As I recall, in the UK there is much less incentive to settle a legal argument (if you feel sure you are in the the right) because the loser of the court case pays the costs of both sides.
Even if you win you might end up out of pocket. I recall a case where a man sued for slander and actually won the action, but he was awarded two pence in damages and ordered to pay the costs of both sides. And lawyers in the UK are no cheaper than their US equivalents.
The UK courts (usually) have a good sense of fairness and even some measure of common sense, which seems remarkably uncommon in some courts. This cuts down immensely on frivolous law suits.
$699 per CPU
Yes, I realize that. How many companies purchase a full office suite, for every desktop in the building without any regard for who will actually use it or not though, even if Wordpad would suit their needs just as well, let alone abiword. LOTS of them. Relative to what companies spend on wages, hardware, and software licensing $699 per CPU on their Linux machines is a pittance. And these are Fortune 500 companies they are targetting, not small businesses with shoestring IT budgets.
Presumably the agreement would be to licence SCO's claimed IP and not to settle ongoing litigation. If it turned out SCO's claims were unfounded then in English law whoever paid could have an action for misrepresentation or perhaps wrongful enrichment. Hardly worth suing for a few hundred quid, though.
Are these the same courts that let Levis win against Tesco?
The funny thing about this attempt is that UK is even less for software patents then the US. If they can't get the US to believe them what makes them think the EU and the UK government will hear them out anymore? European nations are even more pro open source and anti software patents. Hopefully SCO goes bankrupt with this poor decision.
I think Patrick Moore in his heart of hearts thinks that a billion is a million million but he doesn't say that word any more, since politicians have been using that word so often to refer to budgets being a thousand million.
'Cos I already have 3 e-mails in my outbox that have been sitting there waiting to go since SCO first announced their intentions. The first (in case SCO advertise their licences in the press) goes to the Advertising Satandards Authority. The ASA is an organisation whose remit is to ensure that printed advertisments are legal and honest. As SCO has no proof of ownership and hence no definite claim any ad they place would fail requiring them to pull it or face regulatory action.
The second is directed to the local (to SCO UK) police reporting an act of attempting to "obtain funds by deception". This law covers acts along the lines of falsley claiming ownership of something with a view to selling it. Until SCO prove a case one way or the other they have no such proof and no claim.
The third is to the Trading Standards Office complaing of false claims being made.
Between the three of them, it could get quite entertaining.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
And on huge volume. Although, I suspect that trade was bogus - done just for show. After that one trade, volume dropped off to nearly nothing.