I get all sorts of letters from foreign countries telling me that I need to pay fees for x, y and z. They all go in the bin. I get online things advising me to "renew" services (that I never signed up to). Deleted.
I imagine you'd do the same, but you seem to be acting differently in this case.
I appreciate that companies have to protect themselves, but you are doing something based on an undemonstrated risk.
Even if SCO have proof, so what? You think that there won't be a queue of developers to rewrite any infringing code?
Someone, somewhere will pursue this shit all the way to jury trial, hopefully.
Then, we need TV footage of a fairly normal 11 year old kid taking the stand for trading music, and being forced to name the artists she downloaded by some hotshot million dollar a year lawyer.
What would happen to the public opinion of the artist she downloaded?
Sadly, Corrupted Audio Discs are still selling. And I'm not buying, even though it means missing out on the Spiritualized b-sides/outtakes compilation.
Can someone tell me of the sort of cases where someone could be sued for using Microsoft software?
And would this include recommending a Windows solution to a client, and a bug in Windows contributed to the software not working properly, and hence you being sued?
Try recovering a corrupted word document, that has an error that has been sitting dormant for months, so that all your backups include it, and you are required to print it, OCR scan it, reconfigure it and then change it.
Of course, if the document was in an OPEN format, based around XML, you might have a chance of finding and fixing the problem.
Ever had problems with a busted IIS configuration, all hidden away deep in the registry. Apache uses.INI files, easy to fix.
My friend was using OE and had a mailbox corruption. How is he supposed to find the error in a closed format?
And what's the cost difference between a new copy of Redhat vs a new copy of Windows? And what's the difference for support? AFAIK, the support you get with Windows is software upgrades. No telephone calls, unless you pay for them.
I think that a lot of software is probably at 90% Sally Secretary, and some is Sally Secretary compliant.
Mozilla is definitely ready as a browser, Open Office just needs a little more polish.
The funny thing is that most Sally Secretaries/Laura Legal Clerk/Tammy Temp Worker would be happy with Excel 3.0 and Word 2.0. The number of times I've heard our admin clerks complain that something has 'disappeared' after a forced upgrade....
And mention to secretaries that there's a better chance with Open Office of avoiding/not getting/being able to easily repair document corruptions, and they'll be your friend for life.
So is that the earliest date they could do it (considering people are STILL allegedly distributing their IP), or a date that SCO opted for. In other words, have SCO made a deliberate attempt to delay the trial?
I'm not too well up on the US legal system, but following this case, I was under the impression that SCO has said that they are going to take legal action against IBM but have taken no action to back up the words.
No, acting in good faith would be to do the following:-
Notify the users/distributors of the software of the infringement. Get together with the infringer and suggest a settlement of "stop distribution"/remove offending code and pay a financial settlement.
If the infringer doesn't play ball, sue them.
That is the 'good faith' approach. SCO have not taken this approach. If they have the evidence of infringement, they should sue IBM, or shut up.
I'm curious as to why SCO are not taking legal action RIGHT NOW. They have the evidence, and can serve papers on IBM right now.
I hope those considering buying SCO stock are asking the same question.
The example I can also quote is that of the BBC, and their DVD/Video sales.
Here is an organisation that broadcasts programs without encryption or advert breaks. Shows they have shown include 24, The Office, Spooks, Band of Brothers and Blackadder. You'd think people would go out of their way to set their VCR every week and tape the shows and save themselves the money.
And yet, all those shows are in the Top 100 on the Amazon DVD 'hot' list. They've seen it, but want it as a 'keeper' (incidentally, I know no-one who makes complete series tapes - they buy it if they want it).
Not being an American, but presumably this means that people can mail order cartridges from North Carolina to their home address?
Is there a lot of this in the USA? States which have allowed things that are banned in other states gaining additional 'export' markets? I can think of people travelling to Vegas for one.
Slashdot Mirror
I could try and register all sorts of copyrights. Any of these could be attacked by people claiming to be the real copyright holder.
I imagine you'd do the same, but you seem to be acting differently in this case.
I appreciate that companies have to protect themselves, but you are doing something based on an undemonstrated risk.
Even if SCO have proof, so what? You think that there won't be a queue of developers to rewrite any infringing code?
And plenty of companies are still using it. Either they don't know about SCO, don't care or believe that it's a load of BS.
Then, we need TV footage of a fairly normal 11 year old kid taking the stand for trading music, and being forced to name the artists she downloaded by some hotshot million dollar a year lawyer.
What would happen to the public opinion of the artist she downloaded?
Sadly, Corrupted Audio Discs are still selling. And I'm not buying, even though it means missing out on the Spiritualized b-sides/outtakes compilation.
Can someone tell me of the sort of cases where someone could be sued for using Microsoft software? And would this include recommending a Windows solution to a client, and a bug in Windows contributed to the software not working properly, and hence you being sued?
Someone in the UK or the EU? Competition commission? Watchdog? Trading Standards?
Try recovering a corrupted word document, that has an error that has been sitting dormant for months, so that all your backups include it, and you are required to print it, OCR scan it, reconfigure it and then change it.
Of course, if the document was in an OPEN format, based around XML, you might have a chance of finding and fixing the problem.
Ever had problems with a busted IIS configuration, all hidden away deep in the registry. Apache uses .INI files, easy to fix.
My friend was using OE and had a mailbox corruption. How is he supposed to find the error in a closed format?
And what's the cost difference between a new copy of Redhat vs a new copy of Windows? And what's the difference for support? AFAIK, the support you get with Windows is software upgrades. No telephone calls, unless you pay for them.
Mozilla is definitely ready as a browser, Open Office just needs a little more polish.
The funny thing is that most Sally Secretaries/Laura Legal Clerk/Tammy Temp Worker would be happy with Excel 3.0 and Word 2.0. The number of times I've heard our admin clerks complain that something has 'disappeared' after a forced upgrade....
And mention to secretaries that there's a better chance with Open Office of avoiding/not getting/being able to easily repair document corruptions, and they'll be your friend for life.
So is that the earliest date they could do it (considering people are STILL allegedly distributing their IP), or a date that SCO opted for. In other words, have SCO made a deliberate attempt to delay the trial?
I'm not too well up on the US legal system, but following this case, I was under the impression that SCO has said that they are going to take legal action against IBM but have taken no action to back up the words.
Notify the users/distributors of the software of the infringement. Get together with the infringer and suggest a settlement of "stop distribution"/remove offending code and pay a financial settlement.
If the infringer doesn't play ball, sue them.
That is the 'good faith' approach. SCO have not taken this approach. If they have the evidence of infringement, they should sue IBM, or shut up.
I'm curious as to why SCO are not taking legal action RIGHT NOW. They have the evidence, and can serve papers on IBM right now.
I hope those considering buying SCO stock are asking the same question.
We haven't even got to the stage where SCO have proven their claims, and he's talking about giving prosecution exemption to companies who pay them.
Well, DON'T pay them. At least not until they've won a court case proving copyright infringement.
Darl, take someone to court, or shut the fuck up!
Here is an organisation that broadcasts programs without encryption or advert breaks. Shows they have shown include 24, The Office, Spooks, Band of Brothers and Blackadder. You'd think people would go out of their way to set their VCR every week and tape the shows and save themselves the money.
And yet, all those shows are in the Top 100 on the Amazon DVD 'hot' list. They've seen it, but want it as a 'keeper' (incidentally, I know no-one who makes complete series tapes - they buy it if they want it).
Is there a lot of this in the USA? States which have allowed things that are banned in other states gaining additional 'export' markets? I can think of people travelling to Vegas for one.