Comments on: now this is getting interesting: Red Hat vs. SCO

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:04:41 +0000

I don't know for certain, not being a lawyer, but I don't think there is any such law here; if there are, they apparently don't apply. Instead we have to wait for lawsuits to be brought against SCO (Red Hat's is the first) and for the courts to decide the validity of their claims. That means we won't have a resolution until maybe 2006. Even then there is the possibility of appeals which would push it out even further.

By: klaus

klaus — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:57:08 +0000

Strangely it is rarely mentioned that SCO is under a restraining order with a panalty of 250000 EUR in germany that they are not allowed to make any allegations against Linux until they proove them.
So far they didn't.

This is covered by german laws which protect competition in the marketplace.

I wonder if there is no such law in the US?

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:14:10 +0000

racketeering

By: ryan

ryan — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:13:52 +0000

Why aren't SCo being investigated for fraud, extortion racateering etc?

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:18:11 +0000

For those who don't read Slashdot, SCO has announced their Linux license program:

SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux

There was also apparently a phone conference today on the Red Hat lawsuit. Someone who supposedly was in on the call posted his notes (link to Slashdot post):

Michael Elizabeth Chastain's notes from the teleconference

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:01:24 +0000

IBM can't settle out of court. No matter how they spun that, it would carry the connotation that they were wrong. They can't afford that, not in terms of its effect on their relationships with their customers, nor in terms of the "come and get it" signal it sends to all the other worthless companies full of legal pirahna out there.

SCO has done a very good job at painting a scary picture, but they've done it almost too well. They've put one of the few companies which can afford to call them on it in a position where it pretty much has to. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

The one thing which is really bothering me now is wrt to the licensing fees they've announced. Until they make some concrete showing of their case (and I don't mean to some vaguely informed journalists, I mean to me as a business owner who uses Linux) I don't see how this can be considered as anything other than extortion.

They're making threats to my well being (the fact that its more a financial threat than a physical one will have no less effect upon my life) unless I give them a sum of money to which they have no demonstrated right.

While I won't be surprised at all to find out that there's some legal doctrine which lets them engage in an activity which would likely land me in prison because of their "public corporation" status, that's really just semantic window dressing. It's extortion plain and simple, and they should be allowed neither to continue nor to avoid paying a very heavy price for it.

To the poster who called this a pump and dump scam: do some research on the Canopy Group. It's practically their business model.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:29:56 +0000

IBM should go on to court and have the judge throw out the suit on the (non)merits. The SEC should be investigating this insider stock sell-off. If it's all a pump-and-dump routine it's a pretty dumb one, and they'll get nailed.

Of course it's always possible that SCO has some sort of rabbit to pull out of their hat that would explain everything. If so, it's a mystery why they haven't pulled it out by now.

By: Nik Cubrilovic

Nik Cubrilovic — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 18:18:12 +0000

SCO are preparing to counter-sue with allegations of conspiracy and copyright infringment. This is all FUD from SCO to help keep the share price at unrealistic levels (the Directors all purchased options at a very low price (~1 cent a share) back in Febuary, now being slowly sold off: http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html (Yahoo! does not have the Feb data)).

The actual IBM case makes no mention of copyright infringment, it is a breach of non-disclosure between IBM and SCO during their collaborative developments.

SCO own no part of the Linux kernel, SCO themselves used to sell GPL licensed Linux. SCO are now selling 'Linux licenses': http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu094_1.html

UNIX is UNIX, it is an open design theory that is 30 years old now - I can pick up many technical UNIX books that will show me the internal design of what SCO claim to own the copyright on.

IBM should settle the case out of court to end this farse ASAP so that we can all get along with our lives.

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 17:47:30 +0000

More insanity....I love it

By: John

John — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:53:39 +0000

SCOX is back up after they released more FUD.