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?
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
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
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.