Australian Firm Asks SCO To Detail Evidence 488
An anonymous reader submits A Perth, Western Australian company called CyberKnights has told SCO ANZ's MD to detail its IP claims or face legal action for fraud. SCO has just released licenses for Australasia and claims enquiries by several companies already."
about time (Score:2, Insightful)
I was thinking about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I know everyone's more interested in Dean making an ass out of himself in that speech after the Iowa caucus, but the longterm health of the American economy is much more fundamentally important than some passing gasbag.
The story is about Australia, but since Oz is perhaps the most culturally similar country to America (barring Canada, of course) it makes sense to really consider what kinds of steps are necessary to prevent fraud in business. Should the approach that Americans are taking now which is primarily a Republican-style approach of letting private companies duke it out in court and leaving the arbitration to judges the right way to go? Or is the Australian method, similar to the approach approved by Democrats, of forcing the company's books open by law the right thing?
I'm torn. Both approaches are relatively unsatisfactory and have repercussions which may be unintended. Pesonally I lean towards the Republican position of leaving private entities to fight amongst themselves with as little governmental intervention as possible.
Re:criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, our high standards of evidence are something we should be proud of. I just think that the stupidity/ignorance defense should be done away with at a corporate executive/director level. We need the equivalent of Sarbannes-Oxley for ALL corporate behavior, not just the financials, since there are other kinds of corporate fraud damaging the economy and the public trust in America, beyond misleading 10K submissions.
Re:But.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Proof of lawerying industry weighing america down (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't Roe v. Wade, it's a simple verification of the code, no ethical delimas to deal with here.
SCO and the GPL (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I was thinking about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fee (Score:1, Insightful)
It's in your best interests *not* to pay: if they do eventually manage to prove that they own Linux, you're no worse off then than you are now. If they don't (which is almost certainly the outcome), then you've saved yourself the money.
Re:Think (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a catch-22. In the 70s, there was the belief that the board and corporate executives weren't really doing all they could to maximize shareholder value, so they started paying them heavily in stock options and incentives. The result has been many executive who will do whatever it takes, including breaking the law, if it makes the shareholders happy. And if they do manange to increase stock price enough, they can afford enough lawyers that their misdeeds go unpunished, and you might even make enough money and enough campaign contributions that the feds could change their mind about prosecuting you.
Basically the problem is that companies are run by humans; usually very clever and creative people. They found they can get rich by a little bend here, a loophole there, and a tiny little bit of fraud over here. Since everyone is happy when shares go up, a whistleblower is ostracized since they might hurt the value of the stock!
Re:But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stocks go up because lots of people think it's going to go up. Stocks go down because lots of people think the stocks going to go down.
It's as simple as that and there is nothing more to it. It's a mass psycosis.
Re:criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
The Executives get to pick *ONE*
A) I'm a total idiot. I had no idea what my company was doing - I'm not liable for the companies misdeeds.
B) I knew exactly what was going on. That's what I'm paid for. I'm personally responsible for the acts of my company.
However, if they pick A, the shareholders, companies and entities owed funds by the company, and anyone who can show damages can sue the execs personally for fraud and deception. Clearly they got everyone to believe they had the skill to perform their jobs, but didn't. Thus, their pay and all assets resulting from that pay go directly to the company, and all who suffered from it's demise. (This should equally apply to the board positions, as they are the ones who are *supposed* to make sure the company in under good management and run properly.)
Cheers,
Greg
Re:SCO: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason it's exported is because nobody's silly enough to drink it here.
Re:criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong? Well that's subjective, although I agree with you.
Stupid? Hardly. He's managed to steal the Presidency, enrich himself and his wealthy friends, illegally invade two countries (whilst fooling most of the US population), get away with changing a $200Billion budget excess into a $500billion defecit and he's managed to do away with a lot of the civil rights US citizens used to have. And there hasn't been an armed revolt and he's still a serious contender to be re-elected.
So no I don't think he's stupid, I think he is fucking smart. The stupid people are the ones who are putting up with it and paying the price. (US national debt no stands at around $24,000 for each and every man, woman and child in the country - that's how much El Presidente has borrowed in your name). Not sure how you put a price on the civil rights you guys have lost recently but it must be greater.
Re:OT: Tourists (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Economics/Finance 101:
The stock market exists as part of the giant asset allocation machine that is modern capitalism. People with savings (retirement plans, mutual funds) buy shares in companies. These companies have "floated" on the stock exchange because they either need capital (i.e. they sold shares to raise money from the public), or because their founders or early investors wish to realise gains or to diversify their assets.
In theory, a stock's value should be the discounted (net present) value of its future dividends.
Now, the excitement comes for companies whose futures are extremely unclear.
Take SCO - a company I have written about for investors. Now, if SCO wins its court case, then future dividends to shareholders (and David Boies) could be huge. Assume they get $1.5bn from IBM, and then $1bn a year in licensing from Linux. That is a cash flow you can value - and it is probably - after taxes, costs, and expensive security systems - worth about $6-8bn.
Now, SCO is currently valued at (according to Yahoo! Finance) $220m. The market - therefore - is assigning a chance that this court case will succeed of around 2-3%.
Does this Australian court case significantly change the probability of success in the US? No, it doesn't. Which is why SCO's stock price has hardly changed.
(By the way, I wrote a long piece, for investors, on the probability of SCO's case being succesful, and concluded that SCO was "all mouth, and no trousers".)
Re:criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
But for the vast majority of wealthy offenders, they will never see the inside of a courthouse, much less a prison. Ken Lay's Enron stole billions from California, with the White House providing political cover ("it's all the environmentalists' fault! Black Helicopters! Conspiracy theorists! And by the way, here's Arnold!") and will never even see the NEWS about his crimes, if he chooses not to, much less do a perp walk.
Steal $20 from a cash register, go to jail and get raped. With the People cheering and demanding pay per view.
I just noodled the reason why people don't care about wealthy people getting away with major crime: they want to BE the guys getting away with the crimes. They think it's cool! Moore might actually have nailed it: the Horatio Algier syndrome (YOU can be the rich guy who gets away with it -- it's the American Dream!) So people want, in a perverse way, a stratum of people who get all the cash and can't get convicted. In America, it's barely possible to join the elite -- although stats show most such people are just born to their status.
I have perspective born of experience. I grew up in a poor neighborhood, where just walking the street could get you arrested if you didn't look right to a cop. I've had cops break into my house right in front of me.
Contrast it to my later experience in the Chicago northern suburbs, where drugs were sold openly around school. The young scions of the suburbs openly assaulted and battered people of different colors, shapes, and religions. Car theft was common. You'd see kids you know driving around and smashing people's cars with rocks.
And there was NO CRIME RATE among these kids, officially. They never "committed" crimes -- it was invisible to the local cops, unless it was committed right in front of them.
Rich and/or connected people don't commit crimes, and they certainly don't go to jail. Well, there are exceptions, but you get the drift.
PMITAP is for the poor.