Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera GNU is Not Unix Linux Business

Open Source Group Victoria v. SCO, Part II 168

Posted by timothy from the fightin'-words dept.
Following up on last July's complaint, Elektroschock writes that "The Open Source Group Victoria (OSV) made a second complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). In a similar case in Germany SCO Group received an injunction from the court, so SCO never sold Linux licenses in Germany (tarent vs. SCO, district court Munich). Competition police seems to be a strong weapon against SCO-like action."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Group Victoria v. SCO, Part II More

Open Source Group Victoria v. SCO, Part II

Comments Filter:

  • Confused... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Competition police seems to be a strong weapon against SCO-like action.

    What? Could some explain this?

    • Re:Confused... (Score:4, Informative)

      by lucifer_666 ( 662754 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:24PM (#8358301)
      The Australian Consumer & Competition Comission (ACCC) is a government oversight body which has federal powers. It can raid businesses, file charges, detain and question people, they have police like powers.

      The ACCC sticks up for the consumer, takes bad companies to court, stops undercutting to put small businesses out of business, tramples on monopolies, destroys unfair business and does so regularly.

      Most of the big corporates in Australia *hate* them. But I, as a consumer, love them :-)

  • Injunction? (Score:5, Funny)

    by beni1207 ( 603012 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:22PM (#8356731)
    SCO never sold licenses in Germany because of an injunction? Have they sold any licenses anywhere? Didn't think so....

    • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Informative)

      by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:24PM (#8356739) Journal
      They claim to have sold a handful to unnamed companies.

      I think Darl said something like "we solicited 14 companies and over 40% of them licensed it" So I guess that means about 5 companies.

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:29PM (#8357068)
        Darl sais a lot of things.

        Darl also said that SCO would sue a Linux user by now.

        Darl also said that millions of lines of code were their property.

      • They claim to have sold a handful to unnamed companies.

        Since Microsoft and Sun already have Unix rights, did they get discounts on their Linux licenses?

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Ciggy ( 692030 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @05:33PM (#8357387)
        They claim to have sold a handful to unnamed companies.

        In which case they have claimed to being in breech of the GPL and so have no licence to distribute the contributions of the other kernel hackers and so have claimed to have comitted copyright infringement - surely?
      • "We spoke to like, fifteen companies ... 20% of them took up a licence"

        So that's three then, right Darl?!

        Two we know, MS and Sun, the other I dunno.

        J.

    • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:25PM (#8356744)
      Lyrical: "Injunction, junction, what's your function()...?"

      *sorry*

    • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Talence ( 4962 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:26PM (#8356752) Homepage
      Didn't Microsoft allegedly buy licenses from them?

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Informative)

        by telekon ( 185072 ) <canweriotnow&gmail,com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:58PM (#8356916) Homepage Journal
        They licensed both the source code and UNIX patents from SCO... This article [com.com] has the details.

        I was curious as to why they would do this. MS Services for UNIX is the likely reason, but my theory is that after working for over twenty years to come up with an operating system and only managing to come up with Windows XP, they wanted to see how an OS is supposed to work.

        Apple did the same thing... well, no, they bought a company that owned UNIX licenses and used an open-source kernel.

        • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by toast0 ( 63707 ) <slashdotinducedspam@enslaves.us> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:28PM (#8357059)
          You do know that microsoft put out Xenix, which was a very popular unix in the early 80's right? They probably still have the source code for that hanging around somewhere

          • Re:Injunction? (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            SCO has the source to Xenix, because Microsoft sold that operating system to SCO back in the 80s and it became SCO Unix.
            • SCO Xenix is a SysIII based system.

              SCO Unix is a full SysVR3 system. SysVR3.2, with Xenix extensions (most notably csh, and MSC 5 for Unix).

              SCO Unix is not Xenix.

          • Re:Injunction? (Score:4, Informative)

            by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Monday February 23, 2004 @12:00AM (#8359610) Journal
            Actually Xenix still exists today!

            ITs called SCO Openserver. SCO even called it Xenix for awhile and changed the name to openserver when they decided to compile it to 32-bit and update it. They hoped that and a name change would fix its reputation after it lagged behind every Unix out there. Unfortunatly this was the last time they really updated it and again its ages behind and falling apart. They added eide support I think in 2000? I remember I receieved an error message when I attempted to install it in 98 saying that I needed a scsi hard drive.

            Talk about lack of support.

            Xenix was quite popular and so was Openserver before it became neglected and buggy. Then NT, Sun, and Linux came and stole its thunder.

            Ironic oddly since MS paid SCO to license their own code??

          • Compared to SCO, Xenix is a bicycle. At least I heard it somewhere.
        • I was curious as to why they would do this.

          It should be obvious. The enemy of your enemy is your friend. So Microsoft is Friends with SCO.

          The more SCO damages Linux, the more Microsoft Wins.... So it pays for MS to pay SCO to give them funds to fight Linux. Simple.

    • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lord of Ironhand ( 456015 ) <arjen@xyx.nl> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:29PM (#8356763) Homepage
      Funny but also insightful! They haven't sold any because they can go to prison for selling something they don't own. You won't get a license even if you beg for it.

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Nurseman ( 161297 ) <nursemanNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:33PM (#8357089) Homepage Journal
        Funny but also insightful! They haven't sold any because they can go to prison for selling something they don't own. You won't get a license even if you beg for it.

        There was a post from someone on Groklaw [groklaw.net] A while back, sorry I can't find it. But the guy basically called 5-6 times, trying to buy a license, they said "Um, Uh, we'll get back to you on that". They never called. I agree, they are not selling them, because they are not sure they can.

        • Re:Injunction? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by AhBeeDoi ( 686955 )
          The whole Linux license fee is a ploy anyway. It's purpose is sowing FUD to existing and prospective Linux users to pressure IBM. License fees are chump change compared to getting IBM to buy them out to make the lawsuit go away.

          Just think about the facts of the lawsuit. SCO no longer claims line by line copying of millions of lines of Unix code into Linux, but that IBM's contribution of AIX and Dynix code developed in-house is a violation of SCO's IP, whose ownership is being contested by Novell. SCO's cl

    • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Funny)

      by stonebeat.org ( 562495 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:32PM (#8356779) Homepage
      there website [sco.com] has to be online before they sell anything ;)
      • Not necessarily, they could sell a list [groklaw.net] of all the Trojan infected hosts flooding their network. Perhaps that might be a more viable business plan than suing IBM et al.

    • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <ieshan@@@gmail...com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:32PM (#8356780) Homepage Journal
      I think this might be a really interesting idea.

      Suppose we got a group of people together and bought a SCO Linux License. I mean, would we ever get anything for the 700 bucks we give them? It's illegal if we *don't*, I just wonder what exactly they'd give us if we asked for one of these things [as I can't imagine many people in their right minds have ever bought them].

      I think it'd be interesting to put all the material one gets for buying a license online. Not pirated stuff, I just mean photocopies of the documents, etc. It would bring new light to how ridiculous this situation really is.

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:52PM (#8356885)
        You cannot buy a license from SCO. People have tried. If you ask for one they will refuse to sell it to you.

        The only way to obtain a license is if you are a large company in collusion with them or threatened with suit by them.

        An interesting fact is that while we know of the licenses they have sold in collusion (Sun and Microsoft), and we know of companies that have refused SCO's advances (Lehman Brothers, et al), we do not know anything about those few companies SCO seems to claim have otherwise purchased a license.

        Interesting, no? Could one, perhaps, make a crude guess as to what one of the terms of the license agreement is?

        KFG

        • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Informative)

          by mrbuttle ( 587604 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:16PM (#8356992)
          We DO know who bought licenses from SCO. In Mark Heise's response to IBM's letter about missing discovery items, he says there are only three that he knows of, Computer Associates, Questar and Leggett & Platt. Links here [groklaw.net] or here [tuxrocks.com].

          • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:30PM (#8357075)
            Interesting. I missed that.

            It's also interesting that the reference is to a failure of SCO to produce license agreement documentation under the terms of discovery, to which SCO basically replies:

            "We'll get around to it. Honest."

            SCO is going to a fair amount of trouble to ensure that the general run of people do not see their licensing terms and documentation. Up to, and including, refusal to sell the license they are demanding as their right.

            KFG

        • Re:Injunction? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by utlemming ( 654269 )
          If that was the case (where you could only buy a license if you were approached by them) that *is* extortion. And because they are only selling to people that they choose, they are either discriminating or extorting. If they are discriminating then people that have been charged a license should find out how many have been turned away and file a dicrimination law suit. If it is extortion then those that have been charged should file a law suit allegeing rackateering, conspiracy to commit extortion and extort

        • Re:Injunction? (Score:3, Informative)

          by ZeeTeeKiwi ( 615374 )
          You cannot buy a license from SCO. People have tried. If you ask for one they will refuse to sell it to you.

          Unfortunately that's not true. If you're really keen to give away your life savings and open yourself up to never ending litigation ("contracts are what you use against your customers" - Darl) you can buy one online here:

          http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense. html [thescogroup.com]

          • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:57PM (#8357186)
            Fascinating!

            Making it even more interesting that SCO claims all of 10 licensees in their IBM suit. I'd guess Slashdot is about to give them more traffic than these pages have ever had before.

            Of particular interest is the License FAQ page. Bits of it are a real hoot.

            Also of note is the fact that it only allows use of Linux in binary form, explicitly disallowing the possesion of source code. So the only Linux distros that would be in legal compliance would be those that do not distribute source with the binaries.

            So if you bought a SCO license and then downloaded a Mandrake .iso you would be in violation unless you also purchased a source license. And if you go to the source license page you find this:

            SCOsource is a SCO business division that manages its UNIX(R) System intellectual property. The charter of this division is to create new and innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market and to protect its intellectual property asset.

            Followed by an ad for their binary only license.

            The plot grows thicker.

            KFG

            • Actually, all I see is the offer, and several 500s and 'cant find server' errors. Don't think they are /.ed since the first comes up. They may not actually BE taking money, with the excuse "our servers are down, you know, the virus problem thing. Look at the monkey! Look!"

          • They are selling it! The fools! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by molog ( 110171 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @05:16PM (#8357273) Homepage Journal
            Taken directly from [thescogroup.com]
            http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/eula.html

            You may not assign, sublicense, rent, lend, lease, pledge or otherwise transfer or encumber the SCO IP, this Agreement or Your rights or obligations hereunder

            The SCO group is now distrubuting the kernel with additional restrictions, and thus are violating the GPL. They are truely now in violation of all the kernel developer's copyright on the code.

            Molog

            • So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:38PM (#8357712)
              When will the U.S. justice system get around to doing anything? 2006? Later? By then scox will be gone, and those who orchestrated the scam will be even wealthier.

              It doesn't matter if you're doing something blantantly illegal, as long as you do so in a country with a hopelessly inept justice system.

              Back in October, scox filed an absurd motion to dismiss the redhat case because scox cliam - in deference to overwhelming evidence - that scox would never threaten to sue linux users. The Delaware court has been sitting on the motion for all these months. See how easy it is to delay and get away with murder?

              • Re:So what? (Score:1, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward
                The courts will do something about SCOs copyright violations when someone sues. A judges can't just say "hey, I think you are doing something bad, turn up at my courthouse tommorrow. I'll play both prosecutor and judge, but I promise to be unbiased." Until one or more of the kernal hackers tells a lawyer to sue, nothing will happen.

                • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by ZeeTeeKiwi ( 615374 )
                  Until one or more of the kernal hackers tells a lawyer to sue, nothing will happen.

                  Both Redhat and IBM are kernel contributors, they are suing, and the US legal system still sees fit to allow SCO shareholders to make huge windfalls while we all suffer. I am getting quite expasperated at the incredible delays available in the US legal system, especially as demonstrated in the Redhat case.

                  IMO, it appears the Redhat Judge has adopted a "let just wait and see how the IBM case turns out" attitude. If that wa

          • Re:Injunction? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Xenographic ( 557057 )
            I think he's talking about the $699 one, but I confess to having not explored that link very far.

            I do know that several people have reported calling up SCO and being unable to buy anything, however. I'm not sure if they tried the website too, or what.

            That said, I do wonder about the legal angle of it. SCO is rather two-faced, so if the kernel developers try to sue them, they'll probably just try to weasel out of it, and who knows what they'll claim. Whereas if you actually were to buy from them, I'm su
        • The only way to obtain a license is if you are a large company in collusion with them or threatened with suit by them.

          Well, that sports equipment web site guy got a threatening letter, and quite frankly, with no disrespect ment, he's *not* a big fish.

        • They [thescogroup.com] seem to be making a license [thescogroup.com] available to the public and have even produced a EULA [thescogroup.com]. After reading the FAQ [thescogroup.com] I am still unsure if the right to recompile my kernel is granted. As far as I can tell the license is only required for commercial use. Unfortunately the links for additional information all still point to the still missing [netcraft.com] sco.com.

          My favorite question is #28

          I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides purchasing a SCO IP license?

          There are 3 options for

        • The only way to obtain a license is if you are a large company in collusion with them or threatened with suit by them.

          An interesting fact is that while we know of the licenses they have sold in collusion (Sun and Microsoft) [...]

          Is there any evidence to support this "collusion" idea, or is it just another example of the rampant paranoia typical of the average slashdot/OSS community member ?

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 )
        Actually they own Linux as much as Redhat does, the GPL doesn't proclude huge corperations fooling other stupid people into paying them money for it. They can just slap their own gui on it making the gui propreietary and you couldn't even distribute it for free or complain. That's one of the problems with GPL.
        • Sorry, but WRONG. Linus owns Linux. And the authors of other GPL software own the software. The rest of us, including any company, doesn't own any more than they have the copyright to.

          We have a license to use it, the GPL. That is NOT the same as "everyone owns it". If Foo writes a program named Bar, Foo can release it under the GPL, and a proprietary license to any company. I can't do that with Bar because I don't own it.

          The ability to charge for it does not imply ownership. It is simply allowed un

    • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Troll)

      by Clockwurk ( 577966 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:02PM (#8356932) Homepage
      The company I work for bought SCO liscenses for our GNU/Linux workstations and servers. We didn't want to have any legal hassles irregardless of how the SCO suits turn out. They weren't that expensive compared to our other software liscenses and the peace of mind was well worth the cost (kinda like buying something from apple, you know there won't be any hassles, even if the initial cost is slightly higher).

      We didn't pay a liscense fee when we switched over to GNU/Linux, but even with the $699 fee, GNU/Linux was still the best deal for our company.

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Agree 100%. Slashdot readers seem to think that SCO is going after average home users but they're not, they're targeting corporate users that are using SCO GNU/Linux in the workplace. Last year we replaced 10 SGI Irix servers with Dell Poweredge servers running Linux. We, like you, paid the licensing fee just to make sure we didn't get any trouble down the line. Slashdot readers who aren't familiar with enterprise computing need to realize that $699 is nothing. We were paying almost $80K a year just in MAIN

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:4, Funny)

        by thestarz ( 719386 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:21PM (#8357018)
        kinda like buying something from apple

        You just compared Apple with SCO and got modded +3, Informative. Nice one!

      • People like you are helping fund SCO's campaign (Score:5, Insightful)

        by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:22PM (#8357022) Homepage
        It is sad that there are businesses that will so easily pay the extortion money. This only encourages others to adopt similar extortion techniques where they make bogus claims and want you to pay up *before* any of their claims have been proven. Maybe if I was as corrupt as SCO management I would also make a claim against your Linux installations and you'd pay me too. Oh well.

        And please tell me that you at least got a T-shirt.

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:46PM (#8357143)
        And will your legal department have the gumption to sue SCO for fraud when IBM, Novell, and RedHat finish whooping up on them? Your company just paid SCO for something they don't own.

        What is the address of your company's billing department? Since its all that easy to beat money out of them, I figure I can make some shit up and get them to pay me too.

      • Re:Injunction? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Interesting. I'll ignore your history of trolling for a while and ask you: any chance you could post scans of those licenses, or give us some clue as to their text? It's just that nobody else round here has managed to get SCO to sell them a license even by begging for one. Far be it from me to doubt your word, but... actually, it's not far from me at all, because I don't believe you.
      • So who do you work for?

        Computer Associates, Questar or Leggett & Platt?
      • The company I work for bought SCO liscenses for our GNU/Linux workstations and servers. We didn't want to have any legal hassles irregardless of how the SCO suits turn out.

        Can you please give me the address of your leagal and accounts payable people? I believe you have some of my IP and if your folks are dumb enough to fall for SCO's crap, they'll fall for my rantings, too.

        You're full of shit if you lied and worse if you told the truth.

    • Re:Injunction? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      But they are selling! Their website has an online shop where you can buy those licences. You have to give your credit card number:
      SCO Online Shop [thescogroup.com]

  • I reek of SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <sil&politrix,org> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:24PM (#8356741) Homepage Journal

    Literally I puke it up nowadays [scumgroup.com] It goes on to allege that SCO "made a false or misleading representation ... in that ... when [it] granted licences over Linux in the past it wrongly stated the scope of rights granted under the licence." All jokes aside it's this asinine, counterproductive stance that SCO has taken, which has led to even more asinine counterproductive gestapoish legislation [zdnet.co.uk]. When will SCO and other corporations learn they hurt no one but themselves.

    And so ... I troll no more

    • www.scumgroup.com = ROTFLMAO

    • Re:I reek of SCO (Score:3, Insightful)

      by XaXXon ( 202882 )
      When will SCO and other corporations learn they hurt no one but themselves.

      Probably when their stock stops going up. A year ago, their stock was worth a tad over a dollar ($1.11), now it's worth $13.84. It's one-year high is $22.29. Talk about making stock holders happy.

      I tell you when this will stop. When the people who do it start going to jail.

      • Re:I reek of SCO (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fanatic ( 86657 )
        A year ago, their stock was worth a tad over a dollar ($1.11), now it's worth $13.84.

        But that's on microscopic volume, meaning the SCOundrels are just flipping it amongst themselves. If any real quantity of this crap ever hit the market at once, it would drop like a rock.

  • Careful! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:27PM (#8356757)


    Taking them to court may be a violation of their business method patent!

    • Re:Careful! (Score:2, Funny)

      by rholliday ( 754515 )
      "We at the SCO Group have observed several companies, namely one known as the 'RIAA' acting in blatant mimicry of our tried-and-true bullying tactics. We will be taking them to court immediately ..."

      Now there's a dream matchup. :)

  • Competition Police (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robmoss2k ( 580836 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:29PM (#8356772)
    It's nice to see that the ACCC are doing their job. Does anyone know what the situation in the UK is with regards complaints to the relevant authorities? I would be very, very surprised indeed if the Trading Standards Authority, in their new guise and with things to prove, allow the sale of Linux licenses to UK residents and companies by SCO before a decision is reached in court with regards the allegations against the Linux kernel.
    • I was searching [google.co.uk] to find out if the UK authorities are doing anything about SCO and the following ad came up:

      Sco
      Brilliant offers on thousands
      of computing products.
      www.ebay.co.uk

      On clicking the link, I found a copy of SCO Unix for just 25GBP. What a bargain! Much cheaper than this $699.00 Linux stuff I've heard so much about.

    • Re:Competition Police (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      SCO doesn't have an office in th UK, so its outside the jurisdidction of the UK authorities.

      • But they do do business in the UK, therefore there are sanctions the authorities can take. Also I think they are registered with Companies House, but I cannot confirm whether the The SCO Group Limited listed here [companieshouse.gov.uk] is the same company.

        • Interesting, they're in Receivership in the UK, no wonder they've been so quiet. I think that confirms a lot of theories about SCO being on their last legs.
        • Apparently they are now "SCO Software (UK) Limited", a subsidary of "SCO Software (Ireland) Limited". "The SCO Group (UK) Limited", which was a direct subsidary of "The SCO Group, Inc. (Utah)", is being wound up. Both companies appear at on the register at Companies House, The SCO Group was put into administration on 26 March last year, and SCO Software was formed 3 weeks later.

          At first this all looked very suspicious to me, but given the change in control from Utah to Ireland, there is probably nothing f

      • Re:Competition Police (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jrumney ( 197329 )
        SCO doesn't have an office in the UK

        What's this then?

        SCO Software (UK) Ltd
        Titan Court
        3 Bishop Square
        Hatfield
        Herts AL10 9NA

        Tel: +44 (0)1707 226014
        Fax: +44 (0)1707 226184
        E-mail: ukinfo@sco.com
    • I have asked on Slashdot before if anyone has any UK produced or UK distributed material about SCO's licenses. Without that, I think it would be difficult to get Trading Standards or any other organisation to take up the case. So far all I've seen are press releases originating in Utah.

  • Injunction in Munich - no wonder (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kompiluj ( 677438 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:32PM (#8356782)
    I don't know how it would be in Australia - Munich obviously was not interested in paying for Linux (they are currently migrating...)

  • What about the US? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:43PM (#8356830)
    Why hasn't anybody done something like this yet in the US, where SCO is arguably the "strongest"? That'd REALLY put a damper on their FUD.

    And while they were at it, maybe they could get the court to order that SCO pay back any company they scared into paying for a licence.

    • Re:What about the US? (Score:5, Informative)

      by terminal.dk ( 102718 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:18PM (#8357003) Homepage
      The problem is, that in the USA there is no marketing law protecting consumers.

      In Denmark, marketing must be true,and must be verifiable. And you can't refer to named competitors. So Burger King can't say it is better than McDonald.

      If SCO is saying that the competing product, Linux, is illegal, and trying to sell licenses, then their first action is to go to court to have this claim proved.

      Since they have not done so here in a timely manner (they waited until Linux became big, rather than following their obligation to liit damages), they have no case at all any more against Linux. At least not here. Here you must act, or you are lose your rights. Even if we had GIF patents here, the delay from the patent owner in filing cases would be enough for him to lose his rights.

      Laws are different between countries, and I think the basic principles are way better here. The golden rule is that we look at the interest of the community, and at keeping workplaces running. And the truth is over any technicality (i.e. it doesn't matter how the police found the evidence, as long as it is found. If he got it illegally, that is another case against the police).

  • "Administrative detention up to six months" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:44PM (#8356839) Homepage
    The German injunction:
    • Respondent is, in order to avoid
      - an administrative fine from EUR 5 up to EUR 250.000,
      - and, in the case that this cannot be collected, administrative detention
      or
      - administrative detention of up to six months to be enforced in the person of the managing director

      in each case of contravention

      prohibited

      in business relations from claiming and distributing the assertions

      • 1. that the software "Linux" contains SCO's intellectual property that has been unlawfully obtained,
      • 2. that end users who apply Linux are liable for intellectual property infringements towards SCO, and /or
      • 3. that LINUX is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX,

      as far as such assertions are not proven to be true.

    That's clear enough. No more threats by SCO in Germany, or Darl goes to jail.

    SCO isn't fighting this. If they had a case, they would.

  • Depends on country (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alexborges ( 313924 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:45PM (#8356844)
    Competition police seems to be a strong weapon against SCO-like action. ... IN countries that have applicable laws

  • Brave new Internet World = RIP SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @03:50PM (#8356878) Homepage
    Head over here and read an interesting write-up on the changing dynamics [lamlaw.com] of IP extortion a la SCO.

  • SCO never sold any licenses at all (Score:5, Funny)

    by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:20PM (#8357015)
    so SCO never sold Linux licenses in Germany

    In fact quite some people tried to purchase licenses and SCO wouldn't sell them any (because then SCO could get sued for racketeering(sp?))

  • SCO is saying you stole their lawn mower (Score:5, Funny)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:31PM (#8357081) Homepage
    It is like SCO is saying that you stole their lawn mower because they heard you have an automobile. As evidence they point to your neighbour's RV.

    Yes, it is that crazy.

    [Stolen from Yahoos Finance's SCOX Message Board]

  • With Apologies to Mother Goose (Score:5, Funny)

    by mehaiku ( 754091 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:32PM (#8357085) Homepage
    There once was a man named McBride
    Who brought a great case to be tried
    His stock was a hit
    As Darl talked his shit
    But the code he continued to hide.

    To lawyers McBride was a debtor
    Who sought to sue users by letter
    He sued IBM
    With facts few and thin
    A five year old could have done better.

    Darl's *nix was the first in his deal
    The clones that came after he'd steal
    The clones were his perks
    Or derivative works
    Like prior art on the wheel.

    The press was the court Darl first chose
    Didio just brought it new lows
    One could not but wonder
    Whose sheets they were under
    Since both were just Microsoft hoes.

    Darl claimed stolen code when he sued
    With millions of lines he'd include
    He must have deceived
    Since no one believed
    He could count to twenty one when nude.

    To be purchased was Darl's major plan
    Then retire and keep up his tan
    IBM said, "Fuck off,
    You won't be playing golf
    But homeless, beside a trash can."

    McBride only wanted a fee
    For Linux , which always was free
    His whole case was hinging
    On Linux infringing
    On SCO's useless IP.

    Darl wanted these fees forever
    For hatching a plan he thought clever
    With news so infernal
    While hacking the kernel
    Linus said "what the fuck ever."

    Who understood Darl's attack?
    Surely he smoked the best crack
    We were mostly appalled
    Ninety-three called
    Wanting their UnixWare back.

    In Vegas Darl said it would be
    A display of infringing IP
    Boy Wonder McBride
    Pitched all truth aside
    What he showed was all BSD.

    Darl sued everyone that he could
    With contracts he misunderstood
    Not even a shrink
    Could teach him to think
    These lawsuits just made him sport wood.

    (post to be continued in following post due to Slashdot wordcount filter, sorry)

    • Re:With Apologies to Mother Goose (Score:5, Funny)

      by mehaiku ( 754091 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @04:36PM (#8357104) Homepage
      (continued from previous post due to Slashdot word count filter)

      Europe thought Darl lost his mind
      He tried suits there of the same kind
      But Germany said
      Your scam is now dead
      Don't let the door hit your behind.

      Darl's case was completely absurd
      With years 'for a ruling occurred
      It was Darl that I cursed
      Asking which would come first
      The end of this case or the Hurd?

      Finally with the court's backing
      Which Groklaw was certainly tracking
      The discovery phase
      Began in a haze
      Since SCO's facts were so lacking.

      Just seventeen files we could see
      How much smaller could Darl's facts be?
      In court we were glad
      His case truly had
      Much bigger holes than goatse.

      Darl's game was just mostly extortion
      Without facts, why pay him a portion?
      We needed a basis
      To give to Darl's cases
      A retroactive abortion

      Novell finally opened some doors
      Telling Darl, "This code is not yours,
      Now don't have a fit,
      But you do not own shit"
      Me thinks Novell just karma whores.

      How foolish was Darl to be trying
      These cases with nothing but lying
      Within a short term
      Judge Wells will confirm
      That SCO is dying.

      I. Warranty - The above poem and/or limericks come with no warranty, express or implied, and hereinafter, shall be referred to as "the work," and is offered to the public under the terms of the General Chewbacca License.

      II. Waiver

      (a)The work may be copied and/or redistributed, provided all rights to sacrifice your first born child, in either Gatlinburg or Pidgenforge TN, to the great god Tyreeq, Bestower of Hyperbole to All, are waived.

      (b)Should you not waive that right, you may distribute the work to any computer, having no more than 35 processors, except on the last day of every other odd-numbered leap year, when the processor limit is 34, but only if such computer should be infected with at least one Microsoft Outlook Virus. Those fortunate enough to thank their lucky stars they have a *nix box, may run the required Microsoft Outlook Virus via Wine, but not Bochs, FreeDOS, or VMWare, thus infecting their fake_windows drive to meet the term of the license, set out in section II(b).

      III. Distributees - The work may be distributed to other distributees on the following conditions:

      (a) the distributee is still breathing
      (b) the distributee exhibits enough brain activity to accept the license
      (c) the distributee's first name is not a silly typo, like "Darl"

      VI. License Rejection - Should you not accept this license, you may still distribute the work, but only if you write on the back windshield of your personal vehicle, in bright yellow shoe polish, "FOR GOD'S SAKE! ONE LEGGED HAMSTERS RUN FASTER THAN UNIXWARE!" and then drive said vehicle in rush hour once a day for an hour, in the community in which you reside, for seven successive business days and only if the weather is precipitation-free, as in speech and/or beer.

      V. License Violations - Violations of the rights outlined in the General Chewbacca License will be vigorously pursued and all intellectual property rights will be vigorously defended, using the full extent of the law to insure such rights are protected, including, but not limited to, utilizing the services of Rent-A-Drop-Out Security Firm, Inc., to seek out license violations in the jurisdictions in which the violator or violators, may reside.

      VI. Special Exemptions - Perl programmers shall be exempt from all terms of the General Chewbacca License, except section II(a), provided they do not show the author, nor ask the author to review, the resulting hieroglyphics generated by their coding skills.

      VII. Mass Distribution - For those who accept the license to copy and redistribute the work, there shall be a limit of 1,000 copies for any given individual. To remove the limit and allow unlimited copies, you must agree to, and complete, the following terms:
      (a) You must acquire an employment applica

  • SCO's not selling Linux licenses (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @05:01PM (#8357207)
    From their web site:

    NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and distribution of SCO Linux until the intellectual property issues surrounding Linux are resolved. SCO will, however, continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers consistent with existing contractual obligations. SCO offers at no extra charge to its existing Linux customers a SCO UNIX IP license for their use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary format. The license also covers binary use of support updates distributed to them by SCO. This SCO license balances SCO's need to enforce its intellectual property rights against the practical needs of existing customers in the marketplace.

    For further information on how to obtain RPMS/SRPMS for OpenLinux, eDesktop and eServer see:

    www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html [sco.com]

    For further information on how to obtain RPMS/SRPMS for SCO Linux 4.0 see:

    www.sco.com/support/scolinux_info.html [sco.com] or the SCO Linux 4.0 Update Download Page.

    From: www.thescogroup.com/support/download.html [thescogroup.com]

  • Intellectual Property Monopoly v. Antitrust Law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:08PM (#8357554) Journal
    Competition police seems to be a strong weapon against SCO-like action.

    The most salient observation I have seen for some time on Slashdot. You nailed the point.

    Intellectual Property, be it trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret, and the related non-IP causes of action such as anti-circumvention, create limitations and monopolies. Ideally, the monopolies are carefully limited against social needs to yield a net societal benefit, but as with all law, horrifying results can occur. IP is a core source these days of examples of unintended consequences.

    While IP and pseudo-IP create monopolies sponsored by the government, the government likewise has another body of law, a different kind of trade regulation, antitrust, to keep enterprises from abusing even fairly obtained competitive advantages to the detriment of society. Like IP, the application of these laws must be careful, because fear of antitrust liability can actually result in highly anticompettive consequences to the detriment of society.

    Combine that with the corpus of law governing unfair competition and deceptive trade practices more generally, and it is no surprise that when a company really goes out there, there are a kazillion conflicting policies and issues.

    That is why some uses of IP can be so "out there" as to rise to anticompetitive conduct, even though the monopoly given was government-blessed. And why some anticompetitive conduct can preclude a right to assert iP.

    Look for that whenever: (i) a company with significant market share throws IP weight around; (ii) a company with a fairly fought ownership of a marketplace governed by IP tries to extend their rights to non-controlled markets; and (iii) a company, though not a market leader or innovator, really stretches some IP rights they do have to control a market beyond any reasonable threshold.

  • Same here... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:05PM (#8357858) Homepage
    In a similar case in Germany SCO Group received an injunction from the court, so SCO never sold Linux licenses in Germany

    Remember that they're not actually *selling* the license here in the US, only claiming to. More than one person has documented the effort of attempting to buy a license, only to be ignored by SCO.

    They probably realize that they have the potential to get into serious trouble here if they do sell a fraudulent license. They can yell about it all they want, however, to keep the stock price buoyed, and the clueless journalists who write about it never seem to think to do a little more research into the process of buying one.

  • Can someone please claim binary code please please. That way we can demand license fees from every single program ever conceived and compiled.

    I have 2 things to say to you SCO:

    0100011001010101010000110100101100100000010110010 1 00111101010101

    and

    01011001010011110101010100100000010100110100100001 00111101010101010011000100010000100000010000100100 01010010000001000001010100110100100001000001010011 01010001010100010000100000010011110100011000100000 01011001010011110101010101010010010100110100010101

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close