Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Operating Systems Software Unix News Your Rights Online Linux

Skeptical Reactions To SCO From Around The Globe 495

Besides the recent action in Australia, lots of others are choosing to make affirmative statements denying SCO's claims to own the name and code of all things *nix. Read below for a wrap-up of some recent public reactions to the SCO claims from a wide range of potential litigants (if the SCO case gets that far): Japanese conglomerates, American department stores, Bruce Perens, kernel developer Richard Gooch via Mozillaquest, and Joe ("Citizen") Barr.

IpsissimusMarr writes "The Inquirer reports that 'The biggest computer manufacturers in Japan that build systems running Linux will hold out against blustering by SCO to extract license fees based upon unsubstantiated infringement claims, it has emerged.' Its nice to see more support from the business world denouncing SCO's tactics."

janda writes "ComputerWorld is reporting that several companies, including Coastal Transportation, Burlington Coat Factory, and Boscov's Department Store are taking a wait-and-see attitude towards SCO and their new 'Linux license' arrangement.

Best quote from the article:

'I don't remember signing anything with SCO saying I owe them any kind of licensing fees.' (Tom Pratt, Coastal Transportation)

I find it refreshing that companies are starting to stand up to SCO's blackmail attempts."

An anonymous reader points to this story at Mozillaquest according to which IBM says that SCO does not have a viable claim to JFS, NUMA, RCU, etc., writing "IBM says it owns the AIX code it contributed to the Linux kernel despite SCO claims that it has registered its Unix System V copyrights. A big problem for IBM and the GNU/Linux community might be the inclusion of JFS, NUMA software, RCU, etc into the Linux kernel. SCO claims it owns them. However, IBM, SuSE, and kernel.org's Richard Gooch reject SCO-Caldera and Darl McBride's claims that GNU/Linux contains SCO-owned or SCO-copyrighted code. ... The Linux kernel code is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. IBM owns its AIX additions and copyrights to Unix System V code and its development of JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code."

arilian writes "According to this article from ARNnet, SCO's new license may leave them open to litigation by other contributers to the Linux kernel." Bruce Perens and intellectual property lawyer Jim LaBarre are quoted in this one.

Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:

www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.

The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.

Maybe someone else would like to do the same."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Skeptical Reactions To SCO From Around The Globe

Comments Filter:
  • Apathy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AllDigital ( 682202 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:19PM (#6513851)
    This whole situation is really a gauge of the 'apathy' factor. How many peopel will be outraged and yet do nothing? I am not a LINUX or UNIX user, my company does not use LINUX or UNIX... and I see through this scam like double pane window. We should act by complaining now....or else we will get what we deserve! I also used the online complaint form at: www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.
    • SEC Form (Score:4, Insightful)

      by aborchers ( 471342 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:25PM (#6513915) Homepage Journal
      If you have used the FCC form, I assume you've done the research as to information they request, specifically all the contact info for SCO, etc. Could you be so kind as to post that info here so we don't all have to duplicate effort searching these people down?

      • Re:SEC Form (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:45PM (#6514134)
        The SCO Group
        355 South 520 West
        Suite 100
        Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
        801-765-4999 phone
        801-765-1313 fax
      • Re:SEC Form (Score:3, Informative)

        by MikeD83 ( 529104 )
        Darl McBride, President and Chief Executive Officer

        The SCO Group
        355 South 520 West
        Suite 100
        Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
        801-765-4999 phone
        801-765-1313 fax
      • Re:SEC Form (Score:3, Informative)

        by ncc74656 ( 45571 )
        Going by some of the blanks on the form, it would appear to mainly be aimed at stockholders filing a complaint. While I'd like nothing better than to kick SCO <voice style="eric-cartman">square in the nuts</voice>, I own no SCO stock and I haven't contributed so much as a bugfix into Linux. As far as the SEC is concerned, I'd pretty much have no standing and no grounds for a complaint.

        If someone can show me where I'm wrong in this line of thought, though, I'm all ears...

        • Re:SEC Form (Score:3, Informative)

          by horos2c ( 683085 )
          The SEC is not interested in whether you own stock or not; its interested in unfair business tactics outright. Whether or not you own stock is irrelevant to any case that they would want to build against SCO. They want *facts*, the facts to form the basis of a suit.

          And anyways, even if you don't own stock, if you use linux, contribute to linux, or are in IT in general, you are affected by SCO's illegal actions. They hurt your *stock in trade*; a black eye against linux lessens your chance of using it, or

        • Re:SEC Form (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 )
          The disgusting thought is that a number of us probably *DO* own SCO stock and just don't know it because its actually owned through a mutual fund. I'd guess quite a few technology funds and small/mid cap index funds own chunks of SCO.

          So the good news is most of us can use the SEC complaint form. The bad news is that we own (indirectly) some SCO stock.
      • What about BBB? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You can also file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. They have a website at http://www.bbb.org/ [bbb.org]. They say that they handle complaints of the following types:
        • Misleading Advertising
        • Improper Selling Practices
        • Non-delivery of Goods or Services
        • Misrepresentation
        • Unhonored Guarantees or Waranty
        • Unsatisfactory Service
        • Credit/billing Problems
        • Unfulfilled Contracts

        I am not sure which of these apply, but I know Misleading Advertising, Improper Selling Practices, and Misrepresentation and what I would

        • Re:What about BBB? (Score:3, Informative)

          by RALE007 ( 445837 )
          The correct BBB office to file a complaint with against SCO is:

          Better Business Bureau of Utah 5673 S. Redwood Rd., #22 Salt Lake City, UT 84123 -5322 Phone: (801)892-6009 Fax: (801)892-6002 Email: complaints@utah.bbb.org WWW: http://www.utah.bbb.org

          And the BBB has somewhat dated information still referring to them as Caldera. You may wish to reference the company as:

          Caldera International 355 South 520 West Lindon, UT 84042 (801) 765-4999 http://sco.com

    • Re:Apathy (Score:2, Insightful)

      by danaedwards ( 691781 )
      Not just apathy, but also totally clueless. How many PHB's are both ignorant and apathetic?
    • Re:Apathy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:29PM (#6513961)
      Unfortunately, although a ruling in favour of SCO in the United States would also affect me, I do not live in the United States. I'm not sure if that means I can sue them, if the ruling would apply to me, and so on. Added to that, I can't afford legal consultation at the moment.

      I would imagine one of the few questions I have above apply to many people out there, who are indeed very concerned about what this all means.
    • Re:Apathy (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )
      The problem with such statements is that many of us that are affected are not really involved parties. There are certain rules that govern whether or not you have standing to sue. Beyond that, what else can we really do? Will mailbombing the FTC with the same basic complaint achieve anything?

      This is a situation where "involved parties" need to step up and take action. This is what has happened in both Germany and Austrailia. The same needs to happen in any country where SCO has a presence.

  • by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:20PM (#6513859)
    A friend of mine studies in Australia, and was instructed to not base the idea in one of his comp.sci papers on Linux. Because of the SCO scare. The professor told him to go with Windows 2003 server systems, so the (imaginary) system would not be unusable in case of an SCO win.

    One word: Insane.

    • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:22PM (#6513886)
      One word: Insane.

      One word: stupid.

      as far as posting a link for people to complain to the SEC about SCO's actions and how they are just to increase stock value... Great, just what we need. The SEC getting annoyed because 10k geeks decided to spam their form with anti-SCO propaganda.

      A few submissions are fine, a flood, no. I am sure that they are well aware of what SCO is doing and watching closely.

      Do you think that they don't read the news?
      • by Otter ( 3800 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:29PM (#6513973) Journal
        as far as posting a link for people to complain to the SEC about SCO's actions and how they are just to increase stock value... Great, just what we need. The SEC getting annoyed because 10k geeks decided to spam their form with anti-SCO propaganda.

        Agreed. This isn't a freaking petition, or a web poll. If there's a legal case to be made, IBM probably has a lawyer or two on staff who can make the complaint more properly and direct it to the appropriate ears more directly than could be accomplished by thousands of shrieking Slashbots.

      • by op00to ( 219949 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:48PM (#6514159)
        Last time I checked, it wasn't "against the rules" for anyone to file an SEC complaint. They're a government agency, they're here to work for US! These things are taken seriously. If they notice that a lot of people are having issues, it will get more man-hours than some tool getting ripped off by a boiler room.

        Look on the page, where does it tell you that only people with a REALLY GOOD REASON are allowed to fill out the form?
      • by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @03:09PM (#6514345) Homepage
        Er...federal agencies only investigate when there are complaints. A large number of complaints gets more attention, to an extent. You are sure they are investigating SCO? Do you work for the SEC? And if you do, why did you just comment on a matter under investigation?
    • thats just dumb. Has anyone grasped, that to get around sco's claims is to just use one of the 2.2.x kernels? they may not have some of the bells and whistles that the 2.4-2.6 kernels do, but still, they are damn stable, and reliable.

      There are few machines that will not run just as well with the 2.2.x kernels as any of the recent kernels. In some cases even better according to some people.
      • Yes, but what about Netfilter? If you use kernel 2.2, you're limited to ipchains, which aren't stateful. Iptables are stateful (i.e. you can check whether an incoming packet is Established,Related). You won't be able to write quite as sophisticated a firewall. Seems like something of a sacrifice to me.

  • by calebb ( 685461 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:20PM (#6513860) Homepage Journal

    www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm. The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.

    I hope they don't just ignore the barrage of complaints they start receiving at 12:17PM, PST...

    • Hah! Can you imagine the /. effect on the SEC Complain Form? Boy that makes me laugh for some reason...

      -c
    • Speaking of this, could someone make some sort of boilerplate for that form? I'd like to complain but I'm not sure exactly what to put in the fields.
    • by scoove ( 71173 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:41PM (#6514102)
      Uh oh... we just got this in the mail, apparently from SCO. Anyone else receive one of these?

      FROM: CHRIS SONTAG

      Do not be surprised at receiving this important mail. An influential top government functionaire gave me your name and assured me of your transparancy. The trama, humiliation and deprivation which I and my family have suffered since the death of Novell has kept me in focus on searching out the possibilities of safe guarding the colosal sums of money Ray Noorda left behind.

      Presently my elder business partner Darl McBride cannot be reached because he is under the detention by the ruthless Secret Order of the Penguin, a devious band of open source terrorists. At the moment, I have thirty three million US dollars ($33,000,000) currently deposited in a friendly Utah Senator's personal account. I will be sending somebody there for both of you to work together in due course. With the present disposition of this Senator, all monies kept by Mr. Noorda are attempted to be recovered by the current administration. On this note I desire your urgent attention to assist me secure the aformentioned sum in any bank account you may furnish me with.

      We would avail ourselves of a total loss of the whole sum depending upon the promptness to furnish me with this required information which will permit me to facilitate instructions and signal the Senator for expedient transfer of this funds for your account.

      For you providing me with this account and well partaking in this transaction I will oblige you what ever SCO UNIX license ever you desire on request or to be more specific I will oblige you unlimited personal license and one compiler license for server edition.

      The urgency of this matter desires shall be treated with all promptness as any day that passes poses a bigger threat. You must understeand that this transaction should be treated with all secrecy. Under no means should you use a Linux computer to communicate with me as the Penguin Order is watching vigilently. Please contact me through email csontag@sco.com as soon as you receive this letter on your preparedness to assist me.

      Regards,

      C. Sontag


  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:20PM (#6513861)
    it has been a while since I read anything on slashdot about sco! I think it's time for a
    sco section.
  • by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:20PM (#6513868) Homepage
    Japanese conglomerates, American department stores, Bruce Perens

    <BillMurrayVoice>... dogs and cats, living together... </BillMurrayVoice>

  • by PeteyG ( 203921 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:21PM (#6513877) Homepage Journal
    "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form... ...
    Maybe someone else would like to do the same."


    If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.
  • Ooops.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:22PM (#6513881)
    "Damnit, we keep threatening to sue these people, and the fuckers still won't buy our products."

    Seriously though, I'm waiting for Big Blue to bitchslap SCO, and jar them something fierce. It's like National Geographic right before the shark devours the minnow: You know what's going to happen, you are just waiting for it.

    Personally, I'd like to see SCO get bought out by the Linux community, who then votes to oust the CEOs without a golden parachute.
    • Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:33PM (#6513999)
      Who would we elect as our representative? Me, I'd think it wildly ironic if the linux community buys out 51% of SCO, then all elect Eric Raymond as their representative.

      Can't you imagine it?

      ESR walks in, points to the CEOs, and goes, "Fired, Fired, Fired, Fired, and doubly Fired."

      Then he files for chapter 11 so he doesn't have to pay the asshats their pension, sells it to Red Hat for a dollar, yanks the code, and walks out whistling.
      • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)

        by AndroidCat ( 229562 )
        ESR walks in, points to the CEOs, and goes, "Fired, Fired, Fired, Fired, and doubly Fired."

        So long as you're dreaming, why not rent Steve Ballmer to do a "Fired!" dance?

      • The minority share holders can sue if they feel the interests of the majority do not benefit the company or the shareholders in general. (This is called a minority shareholder proxy fight, IIRC)

        Basically, as a share holder and a company, the shit SCO is doing (brain-dead, evil and pathetic as it is) is GOOD for the company. It's getting them press, increasing the stock price, and potentially generating revenue.

        If you come in and put kibosh on all that, you're not acting in the company's best interest. And
        • by bobKali ( 240342 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @04:23PM (#6515521) Homepage
          But what they're doing in only in the company's intrests short-term. It could be easily argued that their actions are damaging the long-term viability of SCO and are therefore BAD for the company.

          Ya know, I was initially disappointed that Monterey got canceled, but seeing SCO's true colors, I think that a successful project would've enabled them to be in stronger position when they would have inevitably pulled this Linux-hijacking attempt.
        • by rc.loco ( 172893 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:05PM (#6517519)

          Yes, that's right. Money != Morality. Might makes right. Welcome to the adult world. Don't get me wrong, I think the SCO executive team should be put in the stockade for being a public nuisance. But the only way to stop them is going to be through fiscal, legislative, regulatory or legal means.
          You know what, I am tired of people/firms/governments assuming that you can unhitch business and moral/social responsibility without repercussions. It's not possible, it's a zero sum game ultimately. It seems like American business people (flame off, I'm American) are willing to be socially irresponsible if not downright morally reprehensible if it means good news for the "bottom line". I left corporate America for this very reason, despite taking a substantial hit financially as a consequence.

          Fill out the SEC form, talk to peers about the issue, do what you can to focus on the socially irresponsible aspects of SCO's misbehavior. Ok, so they didn't create capitalism as it's practiced in America, but they are reinforcing the very worst parts of it.

          Oh wait, I'm wasting my breath. This is America, land where 40% of our Senators are millionaires.

    • by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:38PM (#6514059) Homepage Journal
      If you've ever actually used some of SCO's products, you'd understand why nobody will buy them, even under threat of lawsuit.

      The prices they charge for the crap they peddle are revolting, basically. It's UNIX all right - right out of '92.

      Craig Ringer
    • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:54PM (#6514214)
      Kill them. Kill them a lot. Kill them slowly and painfully with a death by 1000 lawyers. Drain their monetary life's blood a dollar at a time in such a way that they see it going and know they can't get it back.

      Publicly humiliate every SCO executive who had anything to do with this. Make them such social piriahs within the community that they won't even be able to get jobs working a tech support desk. Turn the shareholders into a pack of sharks hungry to feed on their flesh, perhaps by suing them each personally for their losses.

      Do not do anything that could be construed as setting a precedent for the viability of SCO's tactics.

      Millions for defence. Not one damned cent for tribute.

      Then when they are dead, with a silver bullet and a stake in their miserable little whatever it is that passes for a heart in them, pick the corpse for UNIX rights. . . and give them away to the community.

      KFG
    • Re:Ooops.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Arker ( 91948 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:55PM (#6514221) Homepage

      Personally, I'd like to see SCO get bought out by the Linux community, who then votes to oust the CEOs without a golden parachute.

      At least until you can do it for less than a penny a share, that would be a horribly stupid waste of money. They have liabilities out the ass, and no real assets. Their stock price is absurdly high. If we bought them out we'd just be making them rich and ourselves poor.

  • You can find the online complaint form here [ftc.gov].

    To fill out the form, here is SCO's information:

    The SCO Group
    355 South 520 West
    Suite 100
    Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
    801-765-4999 phone
    801-765-1313 fax

    Anyone who uses Linux is threatened by SCO and should file a complaint. I just filed mine, you should file yours too!
  • Curious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pogle ( 71293 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:22PM (#6513889) Homepage
    How valid is it to complain (via the online form mentioned) when one is not an affected or threatened party in this matter?
    • Re:Curious (Score:3, Informative)

      by janda ( 572221 )

      You don't have to be directly affected. You could complain that you think they're just puming up the stock so they can sell out before the company crashes, similar to Enron. The fact that you don't own any SCO stock doesn't matter.

    • Re:Curious (Score:3, Insightful)

      by !Squalus ( 258239 )
      Everyone who uses Linux is being threatened, or don't you read their outrageous claims? The threats being made are a protection racket scheme - that qualifies under RICO.

      If these companies were smart they would use RICO - Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organiztions - act to sue. You CAN do that under civil litigation. It is the one leeway we all have when they start to threaten companies and individuals.

      RICO would also bring in all of their officers, stockholders and investors under the same scrutiny. I
    • Re:Curious (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kismet ( 13199 )
      If you are a Linux user, then you have been officially threatened. SCO may claim that they only go after fortune 1000, but they made it clear that ALL Linux users are infringing, and liable for infringement unless a UnixWare license is purchased.

      If you feel threatened by this attitude from SCO, then you need to take it to the FTC because where you live, extortion is most likely illegal.
    • Securities fraud is a crime. Reporting it is like reporting any other crime. The state is responsible for enforcement once notified.
  • ROTFLMAO (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Otter ( 3800 )
    As Linux user, posting from it now, a finding in favor of SCO would be a pain in the ass for me.

    But after reading the zillionth manifesto, harebrained legal opinion and statement of noisy defiance from the Linux world, I have to confess my first reaction to learning there really is illegally-copied SCO code in Linux will be to laugh my ass off.

    Geez, Joe Barr. Maybe the MPlayer guys will issue a rebuttal.

    • Re:ROTFLMAO (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )
      It doesn't really matter if SCO is right or wrong. They have had ample opportunity to allow the Linux community to remediate the situation. They have chosen to not bother with such civilized options and would rather engage in fits of libel and expensive litigation.

      You forget that YOU will be paying for SCO's inability to work or play well with others.

      Or perhaps you don't pay any taxes.
  • You can complain.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gerf ( 532474 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:24PM (#6513904) Journal

    You can complain about all the SCO articles, but really, people have to realize that this has a HUGE impact on software in general, not just *nix. The decision here will set a precedent to possibly be used for decades, if not a century

    But, here's my gripe, which you can skip by not reading further. I would like to see more home-jobby builds, not necessarily case mods (though, i would like to get a layout of how to build an ATX wood case. heh). We like to see the simplest webservers, the cheapest way to do things on a college shoestring budget. I'd like to have an automatic CD-burner. I want to see what random Linux distros and programs can do for me, though i may never use them. More of the fodder! That is all. /rant

  • It has hardly been updated in a decade! We're talking X11R5, no support for pthreads without installing extensions, etc.

    In this world, your OS can't be "just as good as" Windows to survive. Linux, Solaris, AIX, and Mac OS X are each doing well because they are substantially better at what they do than the competition.

    On the upside, they are allowing free use of Unix Version 7 [trailing-edge.com]. Well, sorta free. apt-get install simh and boot the sucker up if you want to see the somewhat humble beginnings of UNIX.
  • Suggestion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:24PM (#6513908) Homepage
    Why don't we just create an SCO topic, or even better, sco.slashdot.org. That way, those of us who don't like the bi-hourly updates don't have to see them.
    • Whiner... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KlomDark ( 6370 )
      And one about legos, and BSD, and hot grits, and... And even better, some way to filter out stupid posts modded "+5 Funny"

      Look fucktard, this is one of the most relevant stories regarding the future of Linux. This is the main reason I am currently coming to ./ and am interested in seeing every aspect available.

      You don't like it? Skip past it...
  • Seattle, said SCO's newest threats aren't a concern because far too many businesses are now using Linux. "I don't see how they could sue so many [companies] to pony up for a licensing fee,"

    OT, but this is the same as the p2p argument of too many people are already doing it. on the other hand, it just goes to show how confusing the ip laws and the relaxation of standards in the uspto regarding IP have become.

    In May, SCO warned all commercial Linux users that they could be using its code illegally and recom

  • by Squidgee ( 565373 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:27PM (#6513935)
    Complaints are good, but you want to have a _serious basis_ for them, not just geek conjecture.

    Otherwise, you're just going to piss the SEC off, and open yourself up for a lible suit.

    • Complaints are good, but you want to have a _serious basis_ for them, not just geek conjecture.

      Otherwise, you're just going to piss the SEC off, and open yourself up for a lible suit.


      There is some interesting evidence that this whole lawsuit is part of an insider trader scam. Look in the discussion from yesterday's SCO story, and you'll find some links to stuff on Nasdaq.com, and SEC filings, showing SCO executives purchasing SCO stock at bargain basement prices right before filing the lawsuit against IBM, and then you see those same executives selling may shares at dramatically inflated prices, in the last few weeks.

      If you want to find the links quickly, take a lot at my recent postings, one of them is from yesterday, and it's where I posted exactly what I sent to the SEC.
  • by isn't my name ( 514234 ) <slash.threenorth@com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:28PM (#6513954)
    A recent posting on the Groklaw blog [weblogs.com] (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.

    What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.

    Doing some more copyright law searching.

    Found these points at Bromberg and Sunstein LLP [bromsun.com]

    Benefits of Federal Copyright Registration

    Required for Infringement Suit.
    Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.

    Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.


    Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.

    Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.

    Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.

    Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.

    Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.

    Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?

  • Red Hat Response... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chicane-UK ( 455253 ) <chicane-uk@[ ]world.com ['ntl' in gap]> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:29PM (#6513955) Homepage
    Also worth adding.. Red Hat offered a response to this just a few days ago, and that can be found here [redhat.com] - quite short, but an interesting read, and a good effort at making their customers feel a little more relaxed.
  • A Good Start (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thomas.galvin ( 551471 ) <slashdot AT thomas-galvin DOT com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:29PM (#6513957) Homepage
    It is good to see, that people are realizing that this is mostly smoke and bluster. In the end, however, it doesn't matter. What matters, the only thing that will really matter, is when the US government either says "You're right, here's your blank check" or "You're wrong, now shut the hell up." And compensation for all the trouble they've caused would be nice, too.

    It amazes me that a company can do as much dammage as SCO, even if it is at the time being only damage to a reputation, without having to offer some sort of proof. The government is supposed to hold people blameless until they can prove otherwise, but corporations can throw accusations around all they please. We can learn a lot from Germany and australia in this regard.
  • by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:29PM (#6513972) Journal
    Although SCO has been shut down in Germany, their Benelux offices [caldera-benelux.com] in Amsterdam still seem open for business,
    which probably means one can file complaints against them under Dutch law as well.

    Although I'm no expert on the dutch system, they presumably have the same level of consumer-protection as the rest of Europe, meaning that action against them here would probably be fruitful.
  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:36PM (#6514032)
    This. [yahoo.com]

  • by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:50PM (#6514173) Homepage
    (As if that were the case.) ...there needs to be some serious thought about what to say. You cannot just send complaints to the SEC or the FTC without hard, substantiated facts. In fact, the FTC doesn't want you to send complaints unless you have been directly affected. If you have been directly affected, you probably know what to do, so that leaves us with the SEC complaint form.

    I am not exactly sure just how the SEC should be approached with these issues. I am a Linux user, but SCO has not yet attempted to extort money from me. So I cannot issue a complaint on that basis.

    However, we are all aware of SCO's activities, and we find them ethically wrong and quite likely illegal. So what I am asking is does anybody have a generic, factual complaint summary that can be submitted the SEC?

    Most of us do not have time to pour over all of the material in this situation. Even if we could, most of us are not lawyers. Could someone who has an measure of authority on the subject volunteer some time advise the rest of us on how best to alert the SEC (or not to) without sounding like a bunch of Slashbots?

    I imagine a lot of people here are going to get themselves in trouble with the SEC by making silly accusations and libelous statements. A good write up would be appreciated or good reasons not to complain unless you've been approached by SCO to ensure that doesn't happen
  • SEC or FTC? (Score:5, Informative)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @03:01PM (#6514283)
    Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:

    www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.

    The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.

    I believe that "manipulate stock price" would rightly be reported to the SEC. But complaints concerning consumers being "forced to purchase SCO licenses" would, if one believed that such forcing was being done in an illegal manner, best be addressed to the FTC or the Justice Dept.

    sPh

  • by joeldg ( 518249 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @03:03PM (#6514297) Homepage
    I had just thought it was moronic until I read the "warning to linux shops" ( http://sco.com/scosource/gartner_warning.html ) and afterwards have since filed every complaint form I can find about that company..

    yea, they are all bluster and think they *have* something.. but look what happened with the .gif thing, they are just shooting themselves in the stomach to slowly bleed to death..

    I will *never* allow this company or any others I work for to have any dealings with them now, and further I will urge any customer of mine to drop any dealings with them. That is power of Linux users I bet they never thought they would see..

    I have purchasing power and you SCO will never see it. (I hope your stockholders read this)
  • Some SCO N E W S (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @03:08PM (#6514342)
    For my money, the most interesting actual SCO news in weeks is SCO Expands Web Services Strategy With Vultus Technology and Asset Acquisition [yahoo.com]. I cannot begin to understand how this makes sense.

    In other news, as of 15:07EST, this thread is one of the top stories on Google news.

  • by victorvodka ( 597971 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @03:19PM (#6514448) Homepage
    This form allows you to send your comments to the SEC without having to fill in all the boring details:

    http://www.vodkatea.com/sec.html
  • IANAL... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hobbesmaster ( 592205 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @03:47PM (#6515013)
    I'm curious... could a group of Linux developers who contributed to the Linux Kernel file a class action libel suit against SCO? Perhaps in Britain...
  • by earthforce_1 ( 454968 ) <earthforce_1@y a h oo.com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @04:07PM (#6515308) Journal
    Printed onto a toilet paper roll. Just the thing any self respecting geek would want in their bathroom!
  • by eric76 ( 679787 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @04:23PM (#6515535)
    The executives of a public company have certain fiduciary duties to their shareholders.

    If the company is a heavy user of Linux, the costs of the SCO licenses could be extremely expensive.

    If the executives of the company purchase the SCO license, they could possibly be opening themselves up to shareholder lawsuits accusing them of not performing their fiduciary duties to their stockholders.

    For exmaple, if a company only has one or two Linux systems, the executives might find it worthwhile to go ahead and purchase the license. However, if the license fee is $700 per CPU and they have 5,000 CPUS, that would be $3,500,000 dollars in license fees -- easily enough to draw the wrath of their shareholders.

    In other words, if a company has very many Linux systems, it might be a very good idea to discuss the issues with their lawyers before agreeing to pay SCO a penny.
  • by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:05PM (#6516053) Homepage Journal

    Linux's JFS support doesn't come from AIX -- it comes from OS/2, to which SCO holds no copyright nor any other IP rights.

    The OS/2 implementation of JFS was a ground-up rewrite, based on the JFS specification, which is owned completely by IBM. SCO might claim that they have copyrights to the original AIX JFS sources (a dubious claim), but they can't claim they own the JFS _specification_. That's owned by IBM.

    As mentioned above, the OS/2 implementation was a ground-up rewrite based on this spec. The OS/2 version of the code was then ported and integrated into Linux by IBM.

    Thus I can't see how SCO could have any sort of claim on JFS in Linux. SCO has no contracts with IBM pertaining to OS/2 technologies.

    Score one for the good guys...

    Yaz.

  • by swaterman221 ( 673399 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @05:49PM (#6516435)
    Time to put up or shut up. If the -public- (not just SCO shareholders) can't request the SEC look into the truthfulness and legality of a company's executive officers activities (which by there very nature effect the stock price, and therefore the stock market, and thereofore interest rates, and therefore the economy, tax revune, the Federal budget, military pay, etc.) then what good is the law or the government? Does being politicaly "Conservative" (capital C) mean simply, following the "golden rule (who has the gold makes the rules?) or is the law taken seriously and accounting hijinks treated as the crime against the market, and society, they are? The market only works when criminals are kept from hijacking the efforts of innovators - theft is hardly very original.
  • Confession (Score:3, Funny)

    by Charles Dodgeson ( 248492 ) <jeffrey@goldmark.org> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @06:08PM (#6516567) Homepage Journal
    The Santa Cruz Operation was founded by some friends of mine. I don't think that they have been involved with it for a very very long time. One of them still has my copy of The Feynman Lectures, which he hasn't returned. If he's still connected to SCO, I'll be sure to sue him.
  • !!!New plan!!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kaltekar ( 464545 ) <kaltekar.gmail@com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @07:42PM (#6517338) Homepage
    Everyone buy ONE, thats right one stock. Wait for the next shareholder meating(this will work because the lawsuit is going to drag on forever anyway) then force the arses on the board to drop the lawsuit and or off the board of directors.

    hey it might work
  • by ccnull ( 607939 ) <nullNO@SPAMfilmcritic.com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @10:04PM (#6518162) Homepage
    Why hasn't any Linux company -- or Torvalds himself -- sued SCO for a) tortious interference with a contractual relationship, b) trademark infringement, or c) fraud? If I tried to sue J.K. Rowling for stealing a sentence from me and started sending letters to buyers in an attempt to claim royalties for the all Harry Potter books sold, you could be sure she'd countersue my ass into oblivion.

    So what's up, Linus?

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Working...