Open Source Group Victoria v. SCO, Part II 168
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."
Confused... (Score:1, Insightful)
What? Could some explain this?
Re:Confused... (Score:4, Informative)
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 :-)
Re:Confused... (Score:2)
Check your dictionary(.com) (Score:2, Funny)
I think you mean 'jibe [reference.com]':
which is rather the opposite meaning of 'jive' [reference.com]:
Injunction? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Darl also said that SCO would sue a Linux user by now.
Darl also said that millions of lines of code were their property.
Re:Injunction? (Score:3, Funny)
We are sure of this. We know it. Believe us, it's there.
IBM put it there.
We must invade (AIX) IBM to show you, though.
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
Re:Injunction? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Injunction? (Score:1)
Since Microsoft and Sun already have Unix rights, did they get discounts on their Linux licenses?
Re:Injunction? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Precisely, he said... (Score:2)
So that's three then, right Darl?!
Two we know, MS and Sun, the other I dunno.
J.
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Funny)
*sorry*
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Funny)
Puttin' together orders, and lawsuits, and judgements...
Not that there's gonna be any judgements any time soon, SCO's just gonna keep dragging this out...
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Re:Injunction? (Score:1)
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Injunction? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
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)
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??
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
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)
However, I do think the old Mac OS was crap. And it was a fusion of NeXT and *BSD unixes that created the core of OS X.
I'll calmly ignore the Linux remark. But my roommate's seven year old daughter hasn't had any problems with my Debian box. And debian is solid, flexible, powerful... well, it was more solid before I upgraded to testing.
The only upside I see to OS X is that Mac users aren't being subjected to frivolous litigation by a nervous company. [sco.com]
Re:Injunction? (Score:3, Interesting)
Open sourcing quicktime ? - nope
An Open Source client for iTunes ? - nope
They take, but they give nothing back.
Re:Injunction? (Score:3, Informative)
Ask the KDE and GCC developers - they seem to be benefitting the most.
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
- Tons of fixes for KHTML and KJS
- Bug fixes to FreeBSD/Kerberos/CUPS
- Fixes and performance improvementrs for GCC
- Darwin/QuickTime Streaming Server
- Rendezvous
- HeaderDoc
- Open Directory
- OpenPlay
I'm sure there are many others I've missed. What were you saying about Apple giving nothing back again?Re:Injunction? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're probably right - I wouldn't know, I'm still stuck with my x86 system(s) - I'm having a hard time justifying the price tag to check the Apple stuff out [I have plenty of systems for a try out, just no apple stuff]. So I guess I am stuck with the inferior stuff the Linux Developers provide for you and me for free.
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re:Injunction? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Injunction? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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
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
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
They are selling it! The fools! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
Well, that sports equipment web site guy got a threatening letter, and quite frankly, with no disrespect ment, he's *not* a big fish.
Re:Injunction? (Score:1)
My favorite question is #28
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
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)
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re:Injunction? (Score:4, Funny)
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)
And please tell me that you at least got a T-shirt.
Re:Injunction? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
Computer Associates, Questar or Leggett & Platt?
Re:Injunction? (Score:2)
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)
SCO Online Shop [thescogroup.com]
I reek of SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Literally I puke it up nowadays [scumgroup.com] It goes on to allege that SCO "made a false or misleading representation
And so ... I troll no more
Re:I reek of SCO (Score:1)
Re:I reek of SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
Taking them to court may be a violation of their business method patent!
Re:Careful! (Score:2, Funny)
Now there's a dream matchup.
Competition Police (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Competition Police (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Re:Competition Police (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Competition Police (Score:2)
Re:Competition Police (Score:2)
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)
What's this then?
Re:Competition Police (Score:2)
Injunction in Munich - no wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the US? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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).
Re:What about the US? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, although they theoretically can do something illegal in order to get evidence (and may try to use it afterwards), practically it isn't known to happen.[3] Officers have better things to do than bringing legal (and disciplinary) action upon themselves.
And in order to show that it may happen[4], there is currently a case in proceedings, where a suspect would confess to have abducted a 11-year old boy, but would lie about the whereabouts of the child. Believing that the child was still alive, the second highest ranked police officer instructed the officers to threaten the kidnapper to be hurt (by a martial artist) until he would tell. Finally, the suspect told, but the child was only found dead. Next thing, the high ranked officer reported his behaviour himself to the state attorney (he had written a protocol of what happened).
Today, the kidnapper has already been found guilty (the corpse and so being valid evidence) and has to serve a lifelong sentence.
In other words: Yes, the officer did something illegal and he will face the consequences. He did it hoping to find the child before it has to die. Most people sympathize with him, but think he will (and should) be sentenced anyhow, though as midly as law allows. Initially he was charged with a "forced confession"[2], but that was dropped (didn't read why yet), but several other charges still stand: coercion, abuse of authority, etc.
And to come back to my point above: Do you think this officer had stopped and not tried to save the child, even if this would have meant the illegally retrieved evidence couldn't be used?
Luckily, most times, two wrongs don't make a right here.
[1] Unless, of course, they find further proof, like e.g. the corpse at the place where the criminal described.
[2] To force a confession out of someone is a felony which has a minimum sentence of one year of jail.
[3] And no, that doesn't mean it happens and just nobody talks about it. That may happen once or twice but not regularly. Somewhen somebody would talk.
[4] Just to make that clear: that is the first case of that kind in the legal history of Germany (i.e. where an officer does this and then reports himself)
"Administrative detention up to six months" (Score:5, Informative)
- 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
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.
Re:"Administrative detention up to six months" (Score:3, Informative)
So the amount of fine could be up to EUR 250,000.
Re:"Administrative detention up to six months" (Score:3, Funny)
It's a bitch parsing CSV files produced in some european countries....
Depends on country (Score:5, Insightful)
Brave new Internet World = RIP SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO never sold any licenses at all (Score:5, Funny)
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?))
Re:SCO never sold any licenses at all (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO is saying you stole their lawn mower (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it is that crazy.
[Stolen from Yahoos Finance's SCOX Message Board]
With Apologies to Mother Goose (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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]
Re:SCO's not selling Linux licenses (Score:1)
BUT you must buy a license from us or risk being sued!!!
Re:SCO's not selling Linux licenses (Score:2)
Intellectual Property Monopoly v. Antitrust Law (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Someone please.... (Score:2, Funny)
I have 2 things to say to you SCO:
0100011001010101010000110100101100100000010110010 1 00111101010101
and
01011001010011110101010100100000010100110100100001 00111101010101010011000100010000100000010000100100 01010010000001000001010100110100100001000001010011 01010001010100010000100000010011110100011000100000 01011001010011110101010101010010010100110100010101
Re:Given Australia (Score:2, Informative)
Some people got upset that a friend of theirs died. They thought the police were chasing this kid who impaled himself on a fence somehow. But the police say it didn't happen.
Either way, they threw some rocks at the very controlled and very restrained and very responsible police, who in Australia don't have the harsh attitude US police seem to have. Our cops pretty much let them
Re:Given Australia (Score:3)
Not to mention in the aftermath there's been few, carefully considered arrests and even in the (highly unlikely) worst case scenario that the kid was being pursued by the pliice, he died because of nothing more than a tragic a