"defense? The idea that OSDL or anyone else has to pay to defend themselves against a company that's gasping for air with some wild claims is wrong. What costs can be recovered once SCO is shown to be insignificant and wrong? All attorney's fees, travel fees, dining, babysitting, lost wages??"
There needs to be a "loser pays" provision added to civil lawsuit law. If the loser is the initiator, and is a corporation (individuals should be exempt) they should have to pay ALL such legal expenses.
If the legal action causes the corporation to go bankrupt, persons whom the corp owes legal expenses go to the front of the line, ahead of all other creditors when it comes to claims against assets.
This little poison pill might discourage what Scaldera is doing right now. It also encourages officers, execs, and employees, who's wages, benefits, etc would fall in line BEHIND these claims to discourage such practice.
"I thought Linus was being subpoenaed. A subpoena is issued to force a witness to testify; why would Linus need to be defended against this?"
You don't EVER EVER go into ANY legal proceeding without YOUR OWN LAWYER in tow.
Also, subpoenas are not automatic. If SCaldera failed to show sufficient cause as to why Linus, et all SHOULD be compelled to appear or testify, or give a deposition, whatever, then an attorney can quash the subpoena.
And I think they could do that in this case, as the Scaldera vs IBM case is a case of alleged BREECH OF CONTRACT on the part of IBM, which has nothing to do with Linus Torvalds OR Linux...
"My point was that this software may be used in libraries by government mandate. That would be government sponsored censorship and that my friend is a slippery slope."
EXACTLY. If the government is ordering the use of private software on public computers that engages in political censorship, then both the government AND that company have engaged in the violation of Constitutional rights...
Symantec isn't an innocent bystander here... Sure, they have the right to do this in their product. BUT, are they not selling this product to government as a CIPA solution? Does that not dirty their hands?
SCO is essentially making the argument that a software license that GRANTS rights that you don't have under copyright law is somehow illegal, while restrictive licenses (such as the MS EULA) that takes AWAY rights granted or not covered by copyright law is weak and ludicrous in the extreme.
And furthermore, if the GPL is "invalid" how can they now claim to be able to USE GPL'ed code without accepting the GPL, unless SCO has reached a proprietary license agreement with EACH AND EVERY copyright holder of their Linux distro?
About the only argument I think SCO will make (and it's very VERY weak), is the one that, because all the little GNU bits, gcc, perl, etc, make up part of a UNIX-like OS (remember they keep claiming to _OWN_ UNIX) then they owe their copyrights to SCO.
Very hard to argue, and clearly outside the scope of the SCO vs. IBM case.
I think this newest move more or less proves that all SCO exists to do is to make noise and spread FUD for Microsoft. If they truly had a case THEY WANTED TO WIN they'd not be doing what they are doing. This move clearly weakens THEIR OWN copyright claims...
Indeed, their open WILLFUL theft of code (and that is exactly what this is, failure to accept the GPL, followed by WILLFUL distrobution, modification, sale, etc is THEFT of the code) opens SCO up to being sued and forced to reveal THEIR code because clearly there is now PROBABLE CAUSE to think that GPL'ed code has been misappropriated!
While his stances against Clear Channel, et all might be laudable, the thing that MOST stands out about Copps for anyone who follows the FCC (as I do, I run a broadcasting message board) is his crusade against free speech.
Copps wants to agressively enforce an artificial standard of "decency" and fine stations, even taking licenses if their speech doesn't meet his standards.
Could be. Carly is trying to turn HP into Dell, a faceless ultra conseravtive commodity PC and server producer that sucks up to Microsoft and Intel...
Which is sad, as I miss the old Compaq. I still mainly deploy ProLiants, but I'm considering switching to IBM, as they seem to be more open and supportive of alternative hardware and OS's... For instance, HP is tied 100% to Intel on the Itanic chip, and has no plans at all to offer Opteron based servers. IBM is likely to release one soon.
Secretly buying a SCO license so as to CYA on their Linux business (which they have to be in, but seem to be adopting a more Dell like attitude towards it), fits Carly's profile and it also ingratiates them with Microsoft.
Frankly, I expected as much, as the OLD HP died when Carly became absolute dictator with the Compaq merger. If anyone had any doubts, look at the fact that they fired Bruce Perens.
I still think the HP/Compaq merger made no sense, and if it weren't for their overinflated printer ink sales which keep them afloat, we'd be talking about them with the failed AOL/Time Warner merger... Basically HP bought Compaq to BECOME Compaq+HP Printers. Most HP PC and server products were ABANDONED after the merger for the Compaq ones rebranded as HP...
If only more people would look these Imperial Courts straight in the eye, shake their head and say, "no", then follow it with "go to hell" then followed with directions on just how to get there.
I'm getting sick and tired of these usurpers getting in the way of democracy. NO ONE who founded this country ever intended for the Federal Judiciary to become a despotism of hundreds of serve-for-life, can't fire me KINGS...
Boies, hotshot?! Has this guy ever WON a case?! He lost the Napster case, lost against Microsoft, lost defending Algore's perpetual recount, etc.
I don't know WHY this guy has ANY kind of reputation that is positive. He is either a horseshit lawyer, or he takes on loser cases. There is no third possibility.
Hell, the best sign for our side was that BOIES's name was tacked on...
Everyone is missing what this manuver does... SO far, SCO's ACTUAL FILED allegations are about a contract dispute with IBM.
They keep making their copyright claims in press releases.
By IBM introducing copyright violations into the suit themselves, THEY FORCE SCO TO RESPOND. Also, IBM can get the code that SCO claims is in Linux in the discovery phase.
This thing is quickly going nuclear. I notice the stock's dump has started to level off, guess Melinda Gates is spending more pocket change...
Quote me the part of the Constitution that says "seperation of church and state".
You can't. It isn't there. It was "added" by a federal judge.
If we are going to hold regulatory agencies back from exceeding their charter, fine. But let's put the same restraint on the courts. If you REALLY want seperation of church and state, there is a way to add it to the "charter"
Seperation of church and state IS NOT in the Constitution. It was made up by a judge. Read the first amendment. It states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Congress specifically, can't ESTABLISH a state run religion.
The other half "or prevent the free excercise thereof" was blatantly violated by the 9th circus in their ruling.
But then, when we have the Imperial Judiciary, why do we even NEED a Congress? Or even to have elections? That same court damn near STOPPED an election from occuring, just because the liberal ideologues on that 3 judge panel (a Carter apointee and two Clinton apointees) DID NOT LIKE WHAT THE OUTCOME would be!
Which is why the full circuit struck that down.
They knew it exposed the court for what it is...
That's why I'm VERY nervous to have the fate of Linux in a federal court. These guys are liable to do ANYTHING. Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN!
The first amendment bans Congress from ESTABLISHING a state religion. It says nothing about seperation of church and state.
What I don't like are judges who make law. The judiciary is unlelected, and serves for life. That is hardly a body ANY person who doesn't believe in fascism would want writing laws...
You are assuming that a JUDGE can see through SCO's claims. Keep in mind, on the Federal bench, we have "great minds" like:
The 9th "Circus" in San Francisco, with it's stupid pledge ruling, and initial ruling that they had the power to STOP AN ELECTION FROM TAKING PLACE, before reversing themselves
Judge Lewis Kaplan of Time Warner (he worked for a firm that represented them prior to being placed on the bench by Clinton), responsible for the deCSS decision, and added the ability to BAN HYPERLINKS to the DMCA...
Judge Lee West, who seems to think that telemarketers have the right of free speech on the property of others, against their explicit will...
I'd not be CERTAIN about anything our fucked up legal system does, until it's DONE...
What is more certain than anything is that SCO will likely run out of money before the IBM suit goes to trial, if enough counter suits are filed against them.
Getting rid of the carte blanche subpoena power of the DMCA will remove most of the law's teeth, with respect to being able to go after USERS of applications that allow infringement.
They will have to use other means to collect " cause" to file a suit, THEN get discovery to subpoena ISP records. This would be nearly impossible to do on a large enough scale, and would be horribly expensive to do. And it's a process that is in the open, and subject to review and challenge.
In any conventional court case, the subpoena-er must justify the subpoena, and the subpoena-ee has the chance to quash it by countering their claims.
Right now, the DMCA lets the RIAA have carte blanche subpoena WITHOUT the need to even file a lawsuit. They just have a lawfirm write them up and dump them in one jurisdiction.
Also, I think there is another question that needs to be raised:
Standing.
What standing does the RIAA have to bring copyright claims? Does it own any? Did it's members ASSIGN all copyrights they own to them? If so, how are they a legal nonprofit?
"This is gonna become more and more frequent as the lawsuits pile up. Without having to get real warrents and go thru a real legal process, these harrassment tactacts will continue costing normal people lots of time, money and agravation."
This is why, ultimately, I think the subpoena process the DMCA grants will be found unconstitutional.
It basically allows PRIVATE "search and seizure", under the guise of the courts, without ANY due process, judicial review/oversight, etc...
And, no one ELSE except someone invoking the DMCA has, or has ever had, such carte blanche unsupervised subpoena power. It's unprecedented. And quite untested in the courts.
Basically, it violates half the Constitution.
Not that the Constitution matters very much to judges these days.
In order to subpoena, you have to FILE a lawsuit, and get it approved by the presiding judge. Subpoenas are part of the discovery process IN an actual lawsuit.
The DMCA allows witchunts and fishing expeditions, UNSUPERVISED by a court, yet invoking it's power.
Methinks if some lawyer makes that point strongly enough to one of our fine, meglomaniac, unelected king for life Federal judges, it will get struck down.
Not just because it flies in the face of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, but because it is a REAL threat to judicial powers!
"The attorneys for the RIAA still plan to investigate her: "Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant"
If I were her, I'd get an attorney to file suit against the RIAA. If for no other reason than to recover attorney's fees.
Sue the bastards until they pay, or SIGN an agreement to not file any future claim.
Since there will no doubt be others falsely accused, this has the potential of a class action...
Which is why our legal system needs reform... A lawsuit needs to actually HAVE justification to sit in the court queue... Right now, ANYONE can sue ANYONE ELSE for ANYTHING, if they pay a lawyer to file the proper papers, without one shred of evidence...
Why not require a plantiff have to go through a "show cause" preliminary hearing prior to a suit actually being accepted by the court?
Whether they intend to or not, I don't think they CAN file these kinds of suits.
For one thing, it will make them look horrible. And MS and Sun, as investors in this scheme, will be made out in the press to be accomplices.
Most of all, they can't risk such a suit actually COMING TO TRIAL.
Also, HOW can SCO sue Linux end users BEFORE suing Linux resellers and developers? Isn't a court going to be a little bit curious as to why they seem to be willing to let Linus and the rest of the kernel developers CONTINUE to produce and modify "their code" while only going after END USERS who have no expertise to know what code belongs to whom?
SCO wants the THREAT of lawsuits against users out there. They aren't going to file any.
"well, I am not stating that HP should indemnify everyone, i am saying they should not get on the indemnification bandwagon in the first place. It lends cedibility to what is for all intents and purposes a scam to begin with. It also makes HP look tacky"
How? HP is more or less defending EVERYONE by doing this. Anything gleaned from one suit can be used by all...
I suspect that if SCO finds some end user who doesn't have the funds to defend himself, the Red Hat fund, and others will step up to the plate.
Besides, the chances of SCO filing suits against end users is nil right now. It's all a threat that makes great FUD for their Microsoft and Sun masters...
SCO doesn't have the money to file lawsuits like the RIAA does, in many jurisdictions, and to defend themselves against the counterclaims.
They also can't risk one of these suits coming to an actual TRIAL either, especially before the IBM suit is heard (and disposed of).
SCO's threats are total vaporware. Their ROI value to their MS and Sun investors is to keep the PERCEPTION of threat as high and continual as long as possible.
Doesn't seem to be working very well though, as of this writing, their stock is down.72;)
Sure, they are going to CLAIM that this acknowledges "merit". But how? And who will believe it? After all, only an INSANE company would indemnify users without having the lawyers go over and over and over possible liability.
You see, unlike SCO, HP is a going concern that has:
1. Products 2. Services 3. Revenue on 1&2 4. PROFIT on 1&2
Therefore, they aren't going to kamikazee like SCO has done, because, unlike SCaldera, HP actually has a BUSINESS that is at risk.
Besides, (IANAL), copyright law more or less forbids SCO from going after end users for damages anyway, BEFORE establishing that infringement has taken place. The chances of SCO getting ANY damages from Linux users or Linux providers is EXTREMELY thin, so thin they'd have to have a judge that they've BRIBED to give it to them.
You see, in order to claim damages from infringement, SCO has an OBLIGATION to attempt to:
1. Minimize the damage to themselves 2. Stop the infringement
Because SCO won't tell anyone WHAT it is that is infringing, they are forefiting any possible claims of damages against Linux companies and users.
And, don't forget, SCO hasn't filed ANY copyright infringement claims in ANY court, ANYWHERE, except the "Court of the Press Release".
Slashdot Mirror
"defense? The idea that OSDL or anyone else has to pay to defend themselves against a company that's gasping for air with some wild claims is wrong. What costs can be recovered once SCO is shown to be insignificant and wrong? All attorney's fees, travel fees, dining, babysitting, lost wages??"
There needs to be a "loser pays" provision added to civil lawsuit law. If the loser is the initiator, and is a corporation (individuals should be exempt) they should have to pay ALL such legal expenses.
If the legal action causes the corporation to go bankrupt, persons whom the corp owes legal expenses go to the front of the line, ahead of all other creditors when it comes to claims against assets.
This little poison pill might discourage what Scaldera is doing right now. It also encourages officers, execs, and employees, who's wages, benefits, etc would fall in line BEHIND these claims to discourage such practice.
"I thought Linus was being subpoenaed. A subpoena is issued to force a witness to testify; why would Linus need to be defended against this?"
You don't EVER EVER go into ANY legal proceeding without YOUR OWN LAWYER in tow.
Also, subpoenas are not automatic. If SCaldera failed to show sufficient cause as to why Linus, et all SHOULD be compelled to appear or testify, or give a deposition, whatever, then an attorney can quash the subpoena.
And I think they could do that in this case, as the Scaldera vs IBM case is a case of alleged BREECH OF CONTRACT on the part of IBM, which has nothing to do with Linus Torvalds OR Linux...
"My point was that this software may be used in libraries by government mandate. That would be government sponsored censorship and that my friend is a slippery slope."
EXACTLY. If the government is ordering the use of private software on public computers that engages in political censorship, then both the government AND that company have engaged in the violation of Constitutional rights...
Symantec isn't an innocent bystander here... Sure, they have the right to do this in their product. BUT, are they not selling this product to government as a CIPA solution? Does that not dirty their hands?
Send a DMCA takedown notice to SCO's ISP.
If they distribute GPL'ed code in this way by internet, they are violating the DMCA.
SCO is essentially making the argument that a software license that GRANTS rights that you don't have under copyright law is somehow illegal, while restrictive licenses (such as the MS EULA) that takes AWAY rights granted or not covered by copyright law is weak and ludicrous in the extreme.
And furthermore, if the GPL is "invalid" how can they now claim to be able to USE GPL'ed code without accepting the GPL, unless SCO has reached a proprietary license agreement with EACH AND EVERY copyright holder of their Linux distro?
About the only argument I think SCO will make (and it's very VERY weak), is the one that, because all the little GNU bits, gcc, perl, etc, make up part of a UNIX-like OS (remember they keep claiming to _OWN_ UNIX) then they owe their copyrights to SCO.
Very hard to argue, and clearly outside the scope of the SCO vs. IBM case.
I think this newest move more or less proves that all SCO exists to do is to make noise and spread FUD for Microsoft. If they truly had a case THEY WANTED TO WIN they'd not be doing what they are doing. This move clearly weakens THEIR OWN copyright claims...
Indeed, their open WILLFUL theft of code (and that is exactly what this is, failure to accept the GPL, followed by WILLFUL distrobution, modification, sale, etc is THEFT of the code) opens SCO up to being sued and forced to reveal THEIR code because clearly there is now PROBABLE CAUSE to think that GPL'ed code has been misappropriated!
While his stances against Clear Channel, et all might be laudable, the thing that MOST stands out about Copps for anyone who follows the FCC (as I do, I run a broadcasting message board) is his crusade against free speech.
Copps wants to agressively enforce an artificial standard of "decency" and fine stations, even taking licenses if their speech doesn't meet his standards.
Do you expect any less out of a company that makes a product that requires NO technical expertise to defeat?
Could mismanagement (ie: wasting millions on crap DRM like this) be as much or more to blame for the RIAA's woes as P2P?
I've been exposed to TONS of RF... CRT's... access points... 5 50kW FM stations in the city..
ETC.
This is all over blown.
Could be. Carly is trying to turn HP into Dell, a faceless ultra conseravtive commodity PC and server producer that sucks up to Microsoft and Intel...
Which is sad, as I miss the old Compaq. I still mainly deploy ProLiants, but I'm considering switching to IBM, as they seem to be more open and supportive of alternative hardware and OS's... For instance, HP is tied 100% to Intel on the Itanic chip, and has no plans at all to offer Opteron based servers. IBM is likely to release one soon.
Secretly buying a SCO license so as to CYA on their Linux business (which they have to be in, but seem to be adopting a more Dell like attitude towards it), fits Carly's profile and it also ingratiates them with Microsoft.
Frankly, I expected as much, as the OLD HP died when Carly became absolute dictator with the Compaq merger. If anyone had any doubts, look at the fact that they fired Bruce Perens.
I still think the HP/Compaq merger made no sense, and if it weren't for their overinflated printer ink sales which keep them afloat, we'd be talking about them with the failed AOL/Time Warner merger... Basically HP bought Compaq to BECOME Compaq+HP Printers. Most HP PC and server products were ABANDONED after the merger for the Compaq ones rebranded as HP...
BwaaaaHAHAHAHA!!
If only more people would look these Imperial Courts straight in the eye, shake their head and say, "no", then follow it with "go to hell" then followed with directions on just how to get there.
I'm getting sick and tired of these usurpers getting in the way of democracy. NO ONE who founded this country ever intended for the Federal Judiciary to become a despotism of hundreds of serve-for-life, can't fire me KINGS...
Boies, hotshot?! Has this guy ever WON a case?! He lost the Napster case, lost against Microsoft, lost defending Algore's perpetual recount, etc.
I don't know WHY this guy has ANY kind of reputation that is positive. He is either a horseshit lawyer, or he takes on loser cases. There is no third possibility.
Hell, the best sign for our side was that BOIES's name was tacked on...
Everyone is missing what this manuver does... SO far, SCO's ACTUAL FILED allegations are about a contract dispute with IBM.
They keep making their copyright claims in press releases.
By IBM introducing copyright violations into the suit themselves, THEY FORCE SCO TO RESPOND. Also, IBM can get the code that SCO claims is in Linux in the discovery phase.
This thing is quickly going nuclear. I notice the stock's dump has started to level off, guess Melinda Gates is spending more pocket change...
Quote me the part of the Constitution that says "seperation of church and state".
You can't. It isn't there. It was "added" by a federal judge.
If we are going to hold regulatory agencies back from exceeding their charter, fine. But let's put the same restraint on the courts. If you REALLY want seperation of church and state, there is a way to add it to the "charter"
Constitutional Amendment.
Seperation of church and state IS NOT in the Constitution. It was made up by a judge. Read the first amendment. It states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Congress specifically, can't ESTABLISH a state run religion.
The other half "or prevent the free excercise thereof" was blatantly violated by the 9th circus in their ruling.
But then, when we have the Imperial Judiciary, why do we even NEED a Congress? Or even to have elections? That same court damn near STOPPED an election from occuring, just because the liberal ideologues on that 3 judge panel (a Carter apointee and two Clinton apointees) DID NOT LIKE WHAT THE OUTCOME would be!
Which is why the full circuit struck that down.
They knew it exposed the court for what it is...
That's why I'm VERY nervous to have the fate of Linux in a federal court. These guys are liable to do ANYTHING. Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN!
Judge Moore isn't a federal judge.
The first amendment bans Congress from ESTABLISHING a state religion. It says nothing about seperation of church and state.
What I don't like are judges who make law. The judiciary is unlelected, and serves for life. That is hardly a body ANY person who doesn't believe in fascism would want writing laws...
You are assuming that a JUDGE can see through SCO's claims. Keep in mind, on the Federal bench, we have "great minds" like:
The 9th "Circus" in San Francisco, with it's stupid pledge ruling, and initial ruling that they had the power to STOP AN ELECTION FROM TAKING PLACE, before reversing themselves
Judge Lewis Kaplan of Time Warner (he worked for a firm that represented them prior to being placed on the bench by Clinton), responsible for the deCSS decision, and added the ability to BAN HYPERLINKS to the DMCA...
Judge Lee West, who seems to think that telemarketers have the right of free speech on the property of others, against their explicit will...
I'd not be CERTAIN about anything our fucked up legal system does, until it's DONE...
What is more certain than anything is that SCO will likely run out of money before the IBM suit goes to trial, if enough counter suits are filed against them.
You mean the ARTISTS money. Where do you think the money EVERYTHING the RIAA does is skimmed off of?
And start marketing to him..
Lots of these federal judges are SO removed from reality, they wouldn't know it if hit over the head with a clue by four.
Forgot to add:
Getting rid of the carte blanche subpoena power of the DMCA will remove most of the law's teeth, with respect to being able to go after USERS of applications that allow infringement.
They will have to use other means to collect " cause" to file a suit, THEN get discovery to subpoena ISP records. This would be nearly impossible to do on a large enough scale, and would be horribly expensive to do. And it's a process that is in the open, and subject to review and challenge.
In any conventional court case, the subpoena-er must justify the subpoena, and the subpoena-ee has the chance to quash it by countering their claims.
Right now, the DMCA lets the RIAA have carte blanche subpoena WITHOUT the need to even file a lawsuit. They just have a lawfirm write them up and dump them in one jurisdiction.
Also, I think there is another question that needs to be raised:
Standing.
What standing does the RIAA have to bring copyright claims? Does it own any? Did it's members ASSIGN all copyrights they own to them? If so, how are they a legal nonprofit?
"This is gonna become more and more frequent as the lawsuits pile up. Without having to get real warrents and go thru a real legal process, these harrassment tactacts will continue costing normal people lots of time, money and agravation."
This is why, ultimately, I think the subpoena process the DMCA grants will be found unconstitutional.
It basically allows PRIVATE "search and seizure", under the guise of the courts, without ANY due process, judicial review/oversight, etc...
And, no one ELSE except someone invoking the DMCA has, or has ever had, such carte blanche unsupervised subpoena power. It's unprecedented. And quite untested in the courts.
Basically, it violates half the Constitution.
Not that the Constitution matters very much to judges these days.
In order to subpoena, you have to FILE a lawsuit, and get it approved by the presiding judge. Subpoenas are part of the discovery process IN an actual lawsuit.
The DMCA allows witchunts and fishing expeditions, UNSUPERVISED by a court, yet invoking it's power.
Methinks if some lawyer makes that point strongly enough to one of our fine, meglomaniac, unelected king for life Federal judges, it will get struck down.
Not just because it flies in the face of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, but because it is a REAL threat to judicial powers!
"The attorneys for the RIAA still plan to investigate her: "Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant"
If I were her, I'd get an attorney to file suit against the RIAA. If for no other reason than to recover attorney's fees.
Sue the bastards until they pay, or SIGN an agreement to not file any future claim.
Since there will no doubt be others falsely accused, this has the potential of a class action...
Which is why our legal system needs reform... A lawsuit needs to actually HAVE justification to sit in the court queue... Right now, ANYONE can sue ANYONE ELSE for ANYTHING, if they pay a lawyer to file the proper papers, without one shred of evidence...
Why not require a plantiff have to go through a "show cause" preliminary hearing prior to a suit actually being accepted by the court?
Whether they intend to or not, I don't think they CAN file these kinds of suits.
For one thing, it will make them look horrible. And MS and Sun, as investors in this scheme, will be made out in the press to be accomplices.
Most of all, they can't risk such a suit actually COMING TO TRIAL.
Also, HOW can SCO sue Linux end users BEFORE suing Linux resellers and developers? Isn't a court going to be a little bit curious as to why they seem to be willing to let Linus and the rest of the kernel developers CONTINUE to produce and modify "their code" while only going after END USERS who have no expertise to know what code belongs to whom?
SCO wants the THREAT of lawsuits against users out there. They aren't going to file any.
"well, I am not stating that HP should indemnify everyone, i am saying they should not get on the indemnification bandwagon in the first place. It lends cedibility to what is for all intents and purposes a scam to begin with. It also makes HP look tacky"
How? HP is more or less defending EVERYONE by doing this. Anything gleaned from one suit can be used by all...
I suspect that if SCO finds some end user who doesn't have the funds to defend himself, the Red Hat fund, and others will step up to the plate.
Besides, the chances of SCO filing suits against end users is nil right now. It's all a threat that makes great FUD for their Microsoft and Sun masters...
SCO doesn't have the money to file lawsuits like the RIAA does, in many jurisdictions, and to defend themselves against the counterclaims.
They also can't risk one of these suits coming to an actual TRIAL either, especially before the IBM suit is heard (and disposed of).
SCO's threats are total vaporware. Their ROI value to their MS and Sun investors is to keep the PERCEPTION of threat as high and continual as long as possible.
Alright! Another PR to claim on the next 10Q!
.72 ;)
Doesn't seem to be working very well though, as of this writing, their stock is down
Sure, they are going to CLAIM that this acknowledges "merit". But how? And who will believe it? After all, only an INSANE company would indemnify users without having the lawyers go over and over and over possible liability.
You see, unlike SCO, HP is a going concern that has:
1. Products
2. Services
3. Revenue on 1&2
4. PROFIT on 1&2
Therefore, they aren't going to kamikazee like SCO has done, because, unlike SCaldera, HP actually has a BUSINESS that is at risk.
Besides, (IANAL), copyright law more or less forbids SCO from going after end users for damages anyway, BEFORE establishing that infringement has taken place. The chances of SCO getting ANY damages from Linux users or Linux providers is EXTREMELY thin, so thin they'd have to have a judge that they've BRIBED to give it to them.
You see, in order to claim damages from infringement, SCO has an OBLIGATION to attempt to:
1. Minimize the damage to themselves
2. Stop the infringement
Because SCO won't tell anyone WHAT it is that is infringing, they are forefiting any possible claims of damages against Linux companies and users.
And, don't forget, SCO hasn't filed ANY copyright infringement claims in ANY court, ANYWHERE, except the "Court of the Press Release".