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..."
Seriously, this crap has been going on for an insane amount of time now. This announcment is quite clearly yet another attempt to manipulate stock prices.
Since SCO has basically been told to put up or shut up, and has absolutely no proof whatsoever that anything in Linux contains their IP, because it doesn't, they're moving on to other countries. It's an act of desperation. Few in the U.S. bought it, and those that did I am sure feel like complete idiots now for wasting their $699. I expect the situation to be roughly the same in the U.K., except for the £ sign.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
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.
UK Company: Good morning blah blah, how may I help you?
SCO: I was just looking on your website,
thats a nice computer system you've got there.
Wouldn't want anything to happen to it now would we?
A thing so precious would need protection.
We could offer that protection.
Because protection is good to have.
$699 per cpu per year to you.
UK Company: Martha, its another crank caller [click] beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep
liqbase
...is to see this headline:
SCO Files Chapter 11.
'same' article from 14 Jan 2004
Slashdot editors might want to remember that January comes first, so it's pretty much a year old.
Dear Mr. Mcbride,
It has come to my attention that you are attempting to use your phony IP claims as support for attempting legal action against our company. Unfortunately it has been revealed that your business model has some flaws which we can not overlook. At the present moment it seems that you are employing the following strategy in pursuing this threat against us:
1. Claim to own Linux
2. ???
3. Profit!
But, if I may point out sir, that particular strategy was shown to be ineffectual as a vehicle for revenue generation a while ago. Furthermore, and as Kyle pointed out, the particular Gnome who first came up with that strategy was not operating on all intellectual cylinders at the time. Consequently, I would advise you to reconsider the logic of continuing to pursue this plan of action in the future.
Sincerely yours,
Company X
P.S. If you still want to sue us, feel free to try because our legal department is quite bored right now and they could use an easy win. It seems they have not seen anywhere near as much action as our US subsidiary recently.
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
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.
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...
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.
Because in UK people know sarcasm and cynicism and are suitable prepared to handle/deal with it appropriately. Also, an Englishman is able to very eloquently and nicely tell SCO what they can do with legal threats and where any related paperwork can be stored while leaving SCO in no doubt that the answer was a resounding 'NO'.
Does that answer your question?
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
It seems the strategy is to try to scare foreign companies into paying for licenses so that they can continue the legal fight in the USA. SCO in this country (USA) is being driven back under the rock that from which they came and they know it. They also cannot continue paying their attorneys out of their own pockets because the corporate funds they can afford to use in the "Linux IP War" are almost exhausted. "Ding" a dim bulb turns on over their collective heads. "Let's shakedown foreign companies to get the cash needed to sue more organizations." I'm sure all the UK companies will love the idea of helping to pay SCO's attorneys. Of course, the reward for doing this will be the invasion of Europe by SCO legal dogs to maul those companies that dared to ignore SCO. This will happen unless the UK companies act like their American counterparts and wait until the SCO vs IBM, SCO vs Novell cases conclude. Depriving SCO of revenue is the surest way to limit SCO's legal delaying tactics which will allow the American court cases to finish sooner than later.
Dodge HEMIs Rule!
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.
You know it's for the UK. They called it a "programme."
Speaking of SCO and "IP", I've noticed that for the last couple of months EV1 Servers has been advertising in "Linux Journal". They have the gall to put a claim of being "IP Compliant" at the bottom...
Does EV1 really think it's a good idea to KEEP supporting SCO's FUD in front of a big audience of Linux people? Or do they figure that not many Linux people remember what was going on?
Before, I could have written them off as "suckers" for falling for SCO's claims. Now, though, I can only assume they're doing it on purpose...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Autozone?
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Are these the same courts that let Levis win against Tesco?
I'd have to go against that, and say "bring it on". They wouldn't last 5 minutes in a UK court.
If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
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.
Go ahead and use Linux without fear of reprisal; SCO distributed Linux under the terms of the GPL in the UK. That means you are cleared to use it under the terms of the GPL.
SCO/MS will never make specific claims anyway, so who cares WHAT they say.
Seems like their WHOLE business model at this point is making noise.
Yeah, the buzz is growing, but it's called Linux!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
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.
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.
"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.
'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.