Contractors to Bear Burden if SCO Chases AU Govt 114
Peter writes "Contractors are set to bear the burden of SCO legal action if the company chases Australian Government departments. Apparently there are provisions in the Australian Copyright Act which allows the govt to assume IP rights then negotiate a "fair and reasonable" payment for those rights. This is in addition to contract provisions which state that contractors must accept liability for third party IP disputes."
AU to SCO: (Score:2, Funny)
You can only sue the gov't if it lets you. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a threat, see? The sovereign government of .au just needs to tell SCO that the interests of their Linux users outweighs any private "IP" ownership rights of some sleazy American co.
Sounds like a good way to stick it to those 'merkins to me!
Re:You can only sue the gov't if it lets you. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not exactly. Just the government can't be sued. but contractors that supplied the government
Re:AU to SCO: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many states, and countries do these sort of things. Ever noticed why only a very small pool of companies are willing to work as government contractors? There's a reason for that. I'm not knocking it though.
Of course, any liability for Linux would only be incurred if a) the government is extensively using Linux an
Ask your lawyer first (Score:4, Informative)
And soon this will all blow over as SCO is turned into a caldera by IBM.
Re:Ask your lawyer first (Score:1)
Re:Ask your lawyer first (Score:2)
Re:Ask your lawyer first (Score:2)
Once IBM wins though, it's all over folks. None of the other cases will matter and if needed, they could all bind together for one large (many different) counter-sue on SCO. I'm sure Microsoft would have to pay off SCO's negatives once again...
Oh, pick me! Please! (-: (Score:2)
Yes please! I'll take three!
The instant D'ohl's minions send me such paperwork, I become eligible to spend money pounding their miserable claims into the sand. And pound I will. They'll get the legal equivalent of a FSWE from me, and their wandoo is waiting, nicely pre-splintered, in the front yard of our Albany farm. Unfortunately, they're not interested in attacking me, they want someone who'll drop trou and grab their ankles at
Re:Precedent? (Score:2, Funny)
.au OSS (Score:3, Interesting)
Tom.
Re:.au OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do I get the feeling that Linux is Bugs Bunny and SCO is Elmer FUD?
Re:.au OSS (Score:1)
> sued to implement open source solutions, what
> good is that?
Easy. They'll just use their public servants.
Probably the same group who installed their PDP-8 and are just sitting around reading slash-dot waiting for their pensions to kick in.
Re:.au OSS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:.au OSS (Score:1)
Re:.au OSS (Score:2)
Re:.au OSS (Score:1)
The thing to note is that they haven't actually sued anyone (yet) that they hadn't already had a contract with -- so if that isn't a signal to run a mile from them, I don't know what is.
Wonder ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wonder ... (Score:3, Funny)
then the motherland brings in the SAS and we sort em out, Iraq-style.
Re:Wonder ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Couldn't this happen with any software, not just Linux? Linux seems dangerous to some at the moment, but I think that's only because no-one's currently trying to run a stock scam by claiming that they own large, under-specified chunks of Windows, MacOS or Solaris...
Happens all the time - Imatec? (Score:1)
Re:Happens all the time - Imatec? (Score:2)
Intriguing. From the article you cited, that case has some remarkable parallels with the SCOX circus. Imatec filed their lawsuit after the technology they said was infringing had already been in use for at least five years. The court found that Imatec did not in fact own the patents they claimed to own, and even if they did own them, they were invalid anyway. Then again, if the damages are determined b
Threats Alone (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Threats Alone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Threats Alone (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Threats Alone (Score:2)
Re:Threats Alone (Score:1)
These risks and uncertainties include, without limitation: (a) risks that the Company will not be successful in its efforts to protect and enforce its intellectual property rights; (b) risks that the Company will not be able to expand and grow its core UNIX business and that such business may decline; (c) risks that the Company will face increasing competition from competing providers of operating system products and services; (d) risks that the U.S. and international economic and polit
Re:Threats Alone (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember: You can fool some people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time.
SCO has managed to fool some of the people. But their time has started to run out.
Re:Threats Alone (Score:5, Interesting)
What's really unfortunate though, is that, after the dust has settled and its all over but the shoutin', the lawyers are very seldom ever held accountable for their actions.
If, say, it turns out that SCO is in fact in league with the devil, and that David Boies joined SCO's cause fully aware of any lies told thus far, "justice" should demand he be punished alongside Darl McBride. What will most likely happen, though, is that Boies will only get to jack his fees by about a million bucks or so.
Re:Threats Alone (Score:2)
If it can be shown, via an internal memo, that Boies or his firm knew that SCO was being primarily funded by Microsoft dollars, I'd like to see him prosecuted under some provision of RICO.
Also, maybe some news organization like PBS frontline might like to do a story on why the governm
Re:Threats Alone (Score:4, Insightful)
If, say, it turns out that SCO is in fact in league with the devil, and that David Boies joined SCO's cause fully aware of any lies told thus far, "justice" should demand he be punished alongside Darl McBride.
Nonsense. Are you saying that the lawyer who defends a murderer he knows to be guilty should be executed too? Obviously not - our justice system requires that the defense lawyer does his damnedest to get his client off, even if she's clearly as guilty as hell, because that's the only way we can guarantee that someone innocent gets a fair trial even if their lawyer thinks they did it.
Now, you might say that's different, and obviously you weren't referring to criminal trials, and the rules should be different for civil lawsuits, right?
Wrong.
Think about it: consider a hypothetical situation where... oh, let's say Microsoft so everyone knows who to cheer for... where Microsoft really had stolen a bunch of source code from a small company. If a lawyer who lost a case stood a good chance of being accused of knowing the case was wrong and punished for that, then no lawyer would dare go up against Microsoft, since Microsoft's own lawyers would be so likely not only to win, but also to get the little company's lawyer punished. In that situation, our little company would be screwed: who would represent them?
Like it or not, I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a system that both ensures justice and punishes crooked lawyers.
Re:Threats Alone (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully... (Score:5, Insightful)
What this article actually says is:
Attention Aus IT departments: GO AHEAD AND BUY LINUX SOLUTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS, OUR LAW SAYS IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM!
Not to mention the fact that this only comes into play if
"Should SCO's claims on Linux be upheld in US courts."
No Australian government agency is going to "Negotiate" with SCO. They're beaurocrats, and given the decision between "Take Action" and "Pass the Hot Potatoe to Someone Else" no sane official is going to do anything but pass it back to the contractors.
It's not only the reasonable and intelligent thing to do, but for once, it's politically expedient.
All the article says, in essence, is:
There appear to be problems with using Linux in gov't, but by law, those problems belong to the contractors. Procurement agents: go right ahead, you're indemnified by federal law.
This is actually good news, although it depresses me how often my sig has been appropriate lately...
Re:Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully (Score:5, Funny)
"Pass the Hot Potatoe to Someone Else"
Well you have learned, young Padawan
- Master Dan Quale
Re:Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully (Score:2)
Its says to contractors "Don't advise anyone to choose OpenSource. You could cost you big $ and major legal hassels".
And if you don't think that government doesn't listen to contractors, you have no idea how they work.
"How should I know that was the wrong decision, the high-paid consultant said it was correct and here is all the supporting documentation!"
Re:Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully (Score:2)
"These SCO guys are running a scam. If they weren't IBM would have simply BOUGHT SCO by now.
"Wait and see how SCO's numerous cases are turning out. SCO is currently fighting a delaying war on all of them. Germany's high court told SCO flatly: 'Shut up liars!'
"So we don't have much to worry about, since IBM is fighting this to the end, to kill this crap once and for all. M
Re:Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully (Score:2)
More clued in than with Linux they are clued in to their own personal well-being.
The contractor wouldn't even say that to the Austraian govnm becuase they wouldn't care (they are already safe.)
The contractor would have to really believe that SCO would NEVER get close to winning any legal judgement in the courts. Not a 100% certainty. They would also risk paying a lawyer
Re:Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully (Score:2)
Will you? Of course not, even thought you think SCO's case is complete rubbish. Why would you expect anyone else to do so then?
In the world of business, money is what matters - n-one cares what OS is used at all. The only case for Linux is the cost basis - that it is cheaper (and therefore you can squeeze higher marg
Re:Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully (Score:2)
The reason for this is that IBM was once themselves viewed as a monopoly...even so much as to be investigated by the US Gov't...And since SCO owns at least some portion of UNIX as well as making a variant of UNIX, it would be seen as a move to corner the market on UNIX OSes...I'm pretty sure that a few companies like Sun and HP would have something to say about that...
What IBM would do is the
Re:Actually, it's good news, if you read carefully (Score:2)
Make Contracts Open Source! (Score:2, Funny)
Which is nice.
What a great system! (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine a govt library that has every book, newspaper, magazine, etc in its catalogue, all without paying for it! Or better yet, a govt website with mp3s of every song ever written, all free for the download...the end user might be in trouble though.
Now, wasn't that more interesting than the obligatory SCO bashing in the other posts?
Re:What a great system! (Score:3, Interesting)
James
Re:What a great system! (Score:1)
uhhh... (Score:3, Insightful)
how can you seek payment on the IP if you havent been able to prove that your code is in linux.
Re:uhhh... (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's cheaper to submit than to go to court, what is going to happen with most companies that get shaken down?
Re:uhhh... (Score:2)
THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT FIRST.
WOH! WOH, THERE! This the US Court system we are talking about, not a Sherlock Holmes mystery!
Don't follow US Lead (Score:4, Insightful)
the one time? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't follow US Lead (Score:1)
Indemnity (Score:2)
Presuming a contractor is most likely to use one of the main linux distributions, haven't most distros allready provided indemnity against SCOs flight of fancy anyway?
Re:Indemnity (Score:1)
Not that there is any infringing going on here.
This is huge (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally this isn't a big deal, as the gist of these types of clauses is to prevent contractors from plagerising existing code or assuming full responsibility if they do. However, if you are a contractor who is in a position where you have to recommend a software product or hardware vendor, this SCO shit can be a huge black market for open source adoption.
A normal, independant contractor should not and will not assume this type of risk if they are smart. Even if they are sure that SCO's case is bunk (as I am). They probably will lose their contract regardless, and the cost to an independant contractor would be huge.
In other words, good luck finding contractors who willingly will reccommend that a company adopt Linux now.
Thankfully my wife is an IP lawyer, so I'm ready for a fight if need be, but I don't think most contractors are as lucky as me.
Re:This is huge (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is huge (Score:1)
Re:This is huge (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm an independent contractor too (albeit in the UK) and I've seen things like this in potential contracts, along with all kinds of other nastyness - one particular one I often see is that if I su
Re:This is huge (Score:2)
This isn't nastyness, its just common sense. What are you doing passing on something that you shouldn't (copyright infringment,etc) to you client?
Re:This is huge (Score:2)
Bob
Re:This is huge (Score:2)
Then why wouldn't you sign something to that effect?
>What I'm saying is that I'm not responsible for any copyright infringement perpetrated by other people if I use/recommend their software.
The have that put in. Also, if you recommend Linux knowing that SCO says they have a claim, aren't you responsible for the result of your suggestion if SCO is successful?
Re:This is huge (Score:2)
But in asking a professional opinion from a professional consultant and getting you to sign to certain conditions they are performing their due diligence.
SCO defined (Score:5, Insightful)
racketeering: To carry on illegal business activities that involve crimes, such as extortion.
extortion: An excessive or exorbitant charge, such as a $600 licensing fee for a dubiously made IP claim.
SCO's illegal activities aside, does SCO, being an American company, even have the ability to sue a foreign government? Where would the case even be tried? Any chance Darl can just get fed to a croc?
Re:SCO defined (Score:2)
Crocodile Hunter: Now Darl, what I want you to do is take this steak, walk right up to charlie (big croc) over there, and put it in his mouth when he opens up. OK?
Darl: Ok. (walk walk walk, SNAP!)
D'ohl would sue the crocodile... (Score:2)
Fortunately, a six-meter saltie wouldn't care. The "wookie argument" pales into insignificance alongside the "saltie death-roll argument".
Darl? (Score:1)
US Courts (Score:1)
It is not clear how the Commonwealth's special treatment under the Copyright Act will be applied should SCO's claims on Linux be upheld in US courts.
Could me a moot point very soon.
Class action lawsuits in Aus? (Score:3, Informative)
Standard IANAL disclaimer: (Especially in Australia)
I would guess that it is possible for contractors to band together and get some sort of class action status if SCO starts harassing them?
Realistically, I don't think it would be worth their time for SCO to try and identify small fry overseas contractors using Linux and file claims against them. And larger gov't contractors would have enough legal muscle to defend themselves in court. And SCO is becoming notorious for talking much and doing little.
Re:Class action lawsuits in Aus? (Score:1)
Re:Class action lawsuits in Aus? (Score:2, Funny)
> I would guess that it is possible for
> contractors to band together and get some sort
> of class action status if SCO starts harassing
> them?
Bugger it. Its Australia.
Get a group of contractors together and have a quiet work with SCO in the car park with a two'b'four.
I'm somehow not suprised (Score:3, Insightful)
a) those loopholes put in place by the aust-govt, as someone else said, it's to stop the goverment
departments being responsible for any feckups of any contractors. And as such is reasonable i guess.
b) SCO is gutter feeding like this. I mean c'mon they've already shot themselves in the foot and the shin and the
c) Australia is not a state of the US, i mean why the hell are we getting so bleeding litigation happy here now?
(o/t) I know Howard is a Blair/Bush lovechild, and wants Bush bad
Re:I'm somehow not suprised (Score:1)
I think the application was posted a while back; we'll get that 51st star yet!
not exactly... (FUD) (Score:1)
As a contractor you provide a GPL program of sorts. You deliver it as a CD to the agency and therefore is their responsability the rest. BECAUSE THEY are the ones that have the "rights" transmited with the software.
The contractor has no place in the chain whatsoever. And even if he has implemented changes, those changes are of the governamental dep. responsability.
btw... IANAL...
SCO in Australia (Score:3, Insightful)
If found to be breaching the trade practices act, SCO can be fined millions of dollars, like the multi-vitamin industry was a few years ago.
Extortion is an even worse crime, and if they're found to making threatening demands which are clearly illegal, directors can be sent to jail if they ever come to Australia.
If the case is upheld (which it wont be), US results of law cases is just common law to us, not a final opinion. SCO still has to work within our copyright act, which is different (for now) than the US copyright regime.
For example, Sony lost the 'right' to enforce regionalization on PS2 and ipso facto DVDs through an action the ACCC took against them in another copyright case as an amicus curae.
SCO are just fudding here. Unfortunately, barratry was removed as an offence a few years ago, but realistically, it should have been left on the books.
Andrew
What a bunch of noise (Score:2)
RHAT v SCOX: MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED (Score:2)
copied from yahoo scox board
by: poncewattle (44/M