Slashdot Mirror
SCO Website Using Groklaw's Content
darkonc writes "It looks like they didn't learn from the
BSD debacle (where, having sued Berkley for copyright infringement, AT&T found that they were using BSD code without acknowledging it's source). Groklaw has an article detailing how SCO has documents created by and for Groklaw on their site -- without even acknowledging the source. It seems that the defenders of the holy IP principle have hoisted the skull and bones."
Pot, meet kettle.
You can tell a *lot* about a company by it's corporate culture. I remember a post I made a while ago to my weblog, before I did a domain change. It's about PHP Consulting but it really applies to this SCO article because of the no-good-theivery going on at SCO. I think SCO certainly faults on each and every one of the following:
Read on...
...SCO printed on my TP and forgot to put the (c) on the logo!!! Are they going to sue me too???
cat life | grep joy >> memory
http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48789.htm?D E=1
Happened last week- old news in internet time. But applicable her because SCO's financial backing literally took a bullet to the head. I think the least of their concerns would be Groklaw's stolen pdf files.
Groklaw notes that SCO was pulling from both groklaw.net and tuxrocks.com. Even accepting that these are legal documents in SCO's own cases, it is amusing that they can't convert their own documents, but have to pull from OSS sites.
If you think deeply enough, you will have no single direction for your outrage.
Or doesn't copyright apply to scanned documents and PDFs? It's arguable, as there's as much creative expression there than there is in Britney's latest coaster....
...they either a) Have some balls. Or b) are dumb as rocks.
Given their past behavior, I've gotta go with b. For a while, I was expecting ( but certainly not hoping for ) them to pull the rabbit out of their hat and set us all back on our heels. Their claims just seemed too silly not to be justified by *something*.
Now of course, we've all got a pretty good idea what kind of clowns these really are.
Still, to steal from groklaw...whew...that's just stunning in my opinion. You gotta respect the lengths these guys will go to.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I think SCO must be too buy looking over their mountain of discovery proceeds to add a simple attribution to their legal docs website.
Too busy, too cheap, too lazy... who knows what their excuse.
Perhaps it is simply that SCO does not want to give credit where credit is due.
Subdude
On the site where they are using Groklaw's and Tuxrock's documents. SCO has claimed copyright of the work.
So not only have they "borrowed" the work of others instead of doing their own (which apparently may be legal as that they are court documents, or may not be legal since the file itself may be copyrighted although the document cannot be etc... etc... ), they are also claiming copyright on the "borrowed" work.
Regards,
Z
1 in December.
1 in March.
Both people involved in Canopy.
Nothing strange or unusual about that. No sir.
Groklaw better sue SCO for copyright infringement, while there's still any money left.
--
make install -not war
This is like doing a research paper in college.
Let's say I look up some documents on Lexis-Nexus. I have to cite Lexis-Nexis; otherwise it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter where those documents originally came from. My citation must include a reference to Lexis-Nexus saying how I got this information.
If I don't do this, I've committed plagiarism. I would receive an automatic F and face the possibility of further, much more damaging to myself, ramifications.
I don't know about how this might play out in the minutae of copyright law, but in academics SCO would be in serious trouble.
However, for a company currently in court claiming that the fruits of its labours have been misappropriated to turn around and do exactly the same thing... Well, it's hardly in the best taste is it, even if they are so strapped for cash and/or resources that they don't have the ability to transcribe it themselves. Plus, I wouldn't be at all surprised if IBM's legal team finds a way to let the court know about this to show just how two faced SCO can be.
SCO shoot themselves in the foot. Again. We'll pass on the film at eleven, and proceed with the scheduled reality show re-run...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Scanning a document does not give a copyright to the person who performs the scan. SCO has done nothing illegal by grabbing these document.
We rightfully excoriate MSFT and SCO when they make overreaching IP claims. We should be the last ones to make overreaching claims.
That said, the one thing which makes SCOX's claims look the worse is their own damn filings. By publishing them themselves, they aren't helping themselves in the public eye.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Personally, I think it doesn't. Comments might but we're talking about markings here. This is just my personal opinion though. This still doesn't rise beyond mechanical duplication, IMHO.
I think it's questionable whether the PDF files count as a transcript which would be necessary since you would have to have a copyrightable work in the first place.
If memory serves me correctly, there was also a general consensus that
a) SCO sucks b) C&D'ing SCO could prove to be a very interesting publicity stunt c) SCO sucks.
i-ro-ny: 2. a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" (Richard Kain).
It is quite ironic that SCO seems to think that only their most holy IP is significant to them. They should clarify that they couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone else's efforts, or they should at least credit people for doing the work they did instead of (perhaps inadvertantly) trying to make it look like they did this themselves.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
Tell that to Westlaw or Lexis. Both of these companies supply the full text of court decisions, statutes, administrative decesions, etc. etc. All of these are available free at the respective courthouses, gov't offices, libraries where they are stored. Why then would a basic subscription to the state law databases of one state cost around $125 per month? Because the gathering and reformating of this widely dispersed inconveniently printed material has imense value. Westlaw and Lexis do not own the content, but they do own the manner in which it is presented. In a simialr vein, while groklaw doesn't own the content of the documents it has presented, it certainly owns the files it has created.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
The content isn't copyrighted, but the formatting is copyrighted under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0.
What does that mean, that the formatting is copyrighted? See this thread, on Groklaw. There are also court cases where the contents of a phone directory were considered public information, but their compilation, formatting, etc., were considered copyrighted. (I'm feeling to lazy to look it up at the moment.)
Still, does this really rise to the level of a Federal Case? Is it worth it to file suit, or even send a C & D letter?
At any rate, PJ has made it abundantly clear that she has no intention of pursing this legally. She just finds it very funny, as do I. The people crying for litigation are missing the point.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
This is no surprise. SCO has bashed Linux and the GPL for several years now, and all that time have been still attempting to sell their products based on Linux and other GPL software. The left hand slams GPL, while the right hand sings the praises.
Its just further proof that no one at SCO has any idea what the fuck they are doing. I've said it before, I'll say it again...those who can, innovate, those who can't, litigate. And now we can add that those who can't litigate successfully steal from those who can.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I noticed their documents relating to Daimler Chrysler aren't complete. They have quite a few, but seem to have left out the later documents showing WHEN THEY LOST.
This company is just pathetic.
But unless Darl and his buddies end up dirt poor, this has all been fun and games. That's the beauty of corporations: they can misbehave all they want, and when they are eventually killed, no real person has to suffer any meaningful consequences.
To beat the dead horse: this is why corporations shouldn't be treated as equal to humans by the law, because they don't play by the same rules and they don't have the same motivations and limitations. It's unbalanced.
Cheers.
"Yarro, who will remain on SCO board, according to SCO CEO Darl McBride, was replaced at Canopy by Bill Mustard. Mustard was believed to be taking his instructions from Ms. Kreidel."
Ah HA! It was Mr. Mustard at Canopy with the Revolver!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."