IANAL, but the content of this response, particularly the character assassination parts and the allegations that Linus used ilegal proprietary code, ought to be grounds for a libel suit. What do the IAALs think? A good (and easy) verdict would maybe scare off future attacks such as these, or at least force such hacks to be a little bit more believable in thier approaches. This absurdity deserves to get an IBM-style legal clobbering.
So can I start calling this a "phantom" lawsuit? Oh well, pretty soon they're just going to be a "phantom" company. And when the investors come knocking, I'll best they'll be hunting for some "phantom" executives, too. Too bad they didn't only invest "phantom" money in Infinium.
True, I don't dispute that. What I was trying to point out is that Darl himself portrays the RIAA suits as a successful model for his legal actions. It is their tactics that he is expressing approval for.
I see a trend in IP business toward greater and greater willingness to employ the "nuclear" (legal) option, not just for enforcement but for revenue. RIAA, SCO, Infinium Labs (even though they only threatened HardOCP, it's still close enough), all these entities are indicative of a growing use of litigation as business.
I would not mind so much if the legal system didn't constitute an extreme economy of scale (that is, it's a lot easier to sue the bigger/richer you are, a lot harder to do so the smaller/poorer you are). This gives large corporations even greater power to restrict smaller competitors and encourages oligarchic monopoly, competition only among companies rich enough to defend themselves from legal threats from each other.
The courts will be the key tools of future monopoly power, unless something is done.
In the call (at about 16 minutes), Darl directly compares SCO suing end users to the RIAA suing p2p users. Gee, I thought only slashdotters made this connection:)
I just can't get over how appropriate the name is. Now they may have a "phantom lawsuit" one their hands, too! Following further in SCO's buisiness model, should they say that HardOCP is being supported by IBM?
Slashdot Mirror
The Hundred-Years War reference gets me thinking: If France and England go to war against each other again, who gets the carriers?
From the article:
"Fresh from his indoctrination ceremony..."
Perhaps they meant "induction." Or maybe it's a slip that reveals the REAL powers at work behind the so-called "video games industry." Fnord!
IANAL, but the content of this response, particularly the character assassination parts and the allegations that Linus used ilegal proprietary code, ought to be grounds for a libel suit. What do the IAALs think? A good (and easy) verdict would maybe scare off future attacks such as these, or at least force such hacks to be a little bit more believable in thier approaches. This absurdity deserves to get an IBM-style legal clobbering.
So can I start calling this a "phantom" lawsuit? Oh well, pretty soon they're just going to be a "phantom" company. And when the investors come knocking, I'll best they'll be hunting for some "phantom" executives, too. Too bad they didn't only invest "phantom" money in Infinium.
This is the best comment on this thread so far.
I see a trend in IP business toward greater and greater willingness to employ the "nuclear" (legal) option, not just for enforcement but for revenue. RIAA, SCO, Infinium Labs (even though they only threatened HardOCP, it's still close enough), all these entities are indicative of a growing use of litigation as business.
I would not mind so much if the legal system didn't constitute an extreme economy of scale (that is, it's a lot easier to sue the bigger/richer you are, a lot harder to do so the smaller/poorer you are). This gives large corporations even greater power to restrict smaller competitors and encourages oligarchic monopoly, competition only among companies rich enough to defend themselves from legal threats from each other.
The courts will be the key tools of future monopoly power, unless something is done.
In the call (at about 16 minutes), Darl directly compares SCO suing end users to the RIAA suing p2p users. Gee, I thought only slashdotters made this connection :)
I just can't get over how appropriate the name is. Now they may have a "phantom lawsuit" one their hands, too! Following further in SCO's buisiness model, should they say that HardOCP is being supported by IBM?
In the interview, he directly says that Groklaw is "supported" by IBM!!! A blatant lie. Couldn't this be construed as slander???