Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

SCO Targets UK Firms 183

Posted by timothy from the hey-why-not dept.
indierockboy writes "It seems that SCO is bringing its dodgy 'Linux licenses' over here to the UK. Vnunet.com reports that SCO's expansion of their 'Linux licensing programme' makes legal action against UK users 'imminent'. Does anyone know if the ongoing cases in the USA can be used as a defense? Since SCO has yet to prove anything..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Targets UK Firms More

SCO Targets UK Firms

Comments Filter:

  • Merry Xmas to you too, SCO! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rpozz ( 249652 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:47PM (#11182037)
    Seriously, this crap has been going on for an insane amount of time now. This announcment is quite clearly yet another attempt to manipulate stock prices.
    • Only if the US had a legal system that worked.

      It's been what? Two years? Two years into a process and the trial isn't even scheduled till the end of next year, SCO hasn't had to show any evidence, both companies have spent tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for what? Nothing.

      All you have to do is make baseless allegations and you can drag a company through hell for for a few years and make them spend a million or two.

    • And on huge volume. Although, I suspect that trade was bogus - done just for show. After that one trade, volume dropped off to nearly nothing.

  • I for one welcome our new SCO overlords. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IO ERROR ( 128968 ) * <error.ioerror@us> on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:50PM (#11182047) Homepage Journal
    Since SCO has basically been told to put up or shut up, and has absolutely no proof whatsoever that anything in Linux contains their IP, because it doesn't, they're moving on to other countries. It's an act of desperation. Few in the U.S. bought it, and those that did I am sure feel like complete idiots now for wasting their $699. I expect the situation to be roughly the same in the U.K., except for the £ sign.
    • IANAL, and therefore I wonder, can parties that paid their $699 teabagging fee ask for a refund from SCO, or perhaps sue them to get it back?
      • IANAL, and therefore I wonder, can parties that paid their $699 teabagging fee ask for a refund from SCO, or perhaps sue them to get it back?

        It wouldn't be cost effective for each company to sue SCO individually. But a class-action lawsuit could be quite effective.

      • There's no cause of action. They entered a (settlement) contract, with consideration on both sides--namely, SCO agrees to stop litigating for $699, and Defendant agreed to stop defending so that SCO would stop litigating. There's no tort. Now, is there a contract coa? You'd probably have to show that the contract was unenforceable, probably as a fraud. VERY hard to do, since the settlements were (probably) approved by a court. Settlement contracts are pretty rock-solid enforceable.

        • Re:I for one welcome our new SCO overlords. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by BobTheLawyer ( 692026 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @06:59PM (#11182530)
          Presumably the agreement would be to licence SCO's claimed IP and not to settle ongoing litigation. If it turned out SCO's claims were unfounded then in English law whoever paid could have an action for misrepresentation or perhaps wrongful enrichment. Hardly worth suing for a few hundred quid, though.
        • They paid £699 for a licence to use SCO's unix software code contained in the linux kernel.

          Problem is that the linux kernel doesn't contain unix code, and SCO doesn't own the copyright to unix, and the person who does own it (SuSE/Novell) has already given them a licence, as has Caldera/SCO to the extent that they can do this.

          Sounds like there is some sort of case under the Control of Misleading Advertising Regulations and the Trade Descriptions Act.
    • You would be amazed at some of the things that corporations will waste money on. $699 is peanuts. The fact that more haven't bought the license is testimony to how rediculous their prospects are. Considering when they sent out their letters before in the US hardly anyone knew anything about SCO, I doubt they will have any more luck in Europe now.

      Didn't Germany order them to shut up until they have proof of violations?
      • $699 per CPU. So if someone with a large-scale Linux deployment paid the protection fee, it could be in their interest to sue SCO back.
        • $699 per CPU

          Yes, I realize that. How many companies purchase a full office suite, for every desktop in the building without any regard for who will actually use it or not though, even if Wordpad would suit their needs just as well, let alone abiword. LOTS of them. Relative to what companies spend on wages, hardware, and software licensing $699 per CPU on their Linux machines is a pittance. And these are Fortune 500 companies they are targetting, not small businesses with shoestring IT budgets.
          • Regardless, your original post treated this as if it was a mere $699. If you have 100 Linux systems deployed, thats $69k. For 500, it's just under $350k.

            That is not a pittance. Particulatly when weighed against, say, per-CPU licenses of Windows XP. I would not at all be surprised to learn that the "licensing program" was intended to simply steer people away from deploying Linux in the first place, rather than extorting fees from current users.

            Suing to get out of the contract could also restore some of the
    • Well, seems like the action taken in Germany made SCO shut up there, so perhaps all that is required is some forward-thinking company with interest in Linux (Big Blue, are you listening?) to take SCO to court and ask them to substantiate their claims before they ask for (extortion) money.

      One can hope anyways...

    • I for one urge our British cousins to keep SCO over there for the foreseeable future. No rush in sending them back to the US.
      • If SCO can't break Gemany (where the government uses Linux heavily) then they certainly will not succeed elsewhere.

        The UK law will not tollerate the kind of mockery that SCO plays in the US as we do not allow the appeal, reappeal nonsense.

        You can be sure to see SCO back on your door steps very soon, most of the UK citizens who are not living next door to IBM south bank will probably not have heard of Linux over hear so anything SCO does to get into the papers will just give Linux further popularity.

  • It wont work! (Score:1, Funny)

    by a5cii ( 620929 )
    UK Courts are quite fair really.

    Plus British people are less in fear of these sorts of things.
    • Are these the same courts that let Levis win against Tesco?
    • In Germany SCO was ordered by court to stop it's baseless claims. Strong competition law means that anti-compatitive action/rimors is stopped. In the UK it should be the same. Anyway, I really wonder why nobody has filed a criminal investigation into SCO yet. In Germany business fraud is illegal.
    • The British legal system is as badly broken as anywhere else.

      The main purpose of legal systems is to enrich those who practice in the legal system, the rest of us are just a source of income. Lawyers play silly games just to increase costs - like the sending of endless needless letters or winding up each party to ensure that litigation will go on for longer.

      I have seen this many times at first hand; a good friend of mine gave up being a solicitor because it was dishonest.

  • Not news. Moderate article "dumb". (Score:5, Informative)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:51PM (#11182053) Homepage Journal

    AFAICT this isn't news. This is an old article that's surfaced again, possibly courtesy of Google News.

  • Phone call log (Score:5, Funny)

    by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:52PM (#11182054) Homepage Journal
    UK Company: Good morning blah blah, how may I help you?
    SCO: I was just looking on your website,
    thats a nice computer system you've got there.
    Wouldn't want anything to happen to it now would we?
    A thing so precious would need protection.
    We could offer that protection.
    Because protection is good to have.
    $699 per cpu per year to you.
    UK Company: Martha, its another crank caller [click] beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

  • All I want for Christmas... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:54PM (#11182062)
    ...is to see this headline:
    SCO Files Chapter 11.

  • Response letter to send if SCO tries to sue you (Score:5, Funny)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @04:59PM (#11182076)
    Dear Mr. Mcbride,

    It has come to my attention that you are attempting to use your phony IP claims as support for attempting legal action against our company. Unfortunately it has been revealed that your business model has some flaws which we can not overlook. At the present moment it seems that you are employing the following strategy in pursuing this threat against us:

    1. Claim to own Linux
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    But, if I may point out sir, that particular strategy was shown to be ineffectual as a vehicle for revenue generation a while ago. Furthermore, and as Kyle pointed out, the particular Gnome who first came up with that strategy was not operating on all intellectual cylinders at the time. Consequently, I would advise you to reconsider the logic of continuing to pursue this plan of action in the future.

    Sincerely yours,
    Company X

    P.S. If you still want to sue us, feel free to try because our legal department is quite bored right now and they could use an easy win. It seems they have not seen anywhere near as much action as our US subsidiary recently.
    • Heh I just sent them the above message and this is what I got back.

      Hello, this is the qconfirm mail-handling program. One or more messages
      from you are being held because your address was not recognized.

      To release your pending message(s) for delivery, please reply to this
      request. Your reply will not be read, so an empty message is fine.

      If you do not reply to this request, your message(s) will eventually be
      returned to you, and will never be delivered to the envelope recipient.

      This confirmation verifies th

  • Any evidence? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have not even heard rumors of "Stolen Code" except for things like erno.h (I don't know how to spell). Last Janruary they were supposed to have been required to produce the code, they didn't. . .you know the story.

    Here we are more than a year after the trial started and they haven't produced any evidence that they own anything, and they are threatening legal action on the basis of their no evidence. This is redundant, but why does anyone listen to them? Do they think the CIO's of companies will just pay

    • Re:Any evidence? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Do they think the CIO's of companies will just pay without any evidence that they should?

      I don't know, why not try asking EV1 about that?

  • The legal system (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:06PM (#11182104) Homepage
    Knowing a lawyer, the legal system in the UK doesn't put up with the shit the American system does. It is possible for legal events in other countries to influence our law. My friend cited a case regarding a patent dispute where the patent had been filed in the EU and prior art was being shown to exist in the EU. However, they'd already filed a patent in the US convering that technology and that pre-dated the european prior art. They won the case.

    Returning to topic, SCO have to tread really carefully here. Firstly, if the British courts find their claim to be baseless that surely more ammunition for a motion to have the cases in the States dismissed.

    Secondly, we have some pretty strict rules about business practices. They could find themselves in hot water with the regulators if they're shown to be effectively extorting people.

    Thirdly, they have the EU to deal with. Lots of EU countries are rolling linux out. For this reason, they automatically have many powerful enemies who will be looking for ways to silence SCO. Microsoft learned the EU has teeth. So will SCO.

    Simon

    • Re:The legal system (Score:3, Interesting)

      by midav ( 63224 )
      Speaking of the legal system.

      I have a (hopefully correct) layman knowledge that in the UK, unlike as in the US, the loser pays all, which serves as a guard against the nuisance lawsuites. However, The SCO Group is unlikely to have any money left in 1-2 quarters, so how does the UK's justice system operate in such cases, i.e. when the defendant is unlikely to recover litigation costs?

      • Re:The legal system (Score:4, Interesting)

        by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:25PM (#11182165)
        It requires a personal liability against the Directors if they've been acting inappropriately/illegally (if I remember aright). So, the big brass could be in danger of losing houses etc. if they screw up, and lose all the money, and end up owing the courts.
        Bankruptcy, of course, gets them out of owing millions at the end of selling everything.. But it's still a hit to take.

      • Re:The legal system (Score:4, Informative)

        by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:41PM (#11182233)
        No, in the UK the Judge has the powers to distribute costs as he sees fit, so its not a 'loser pays all', the two sides could very well be made to pay for their own costs. Indeed there has been cases in the past where the loser has been awarded costs, which means the winner gets to pay both sides costs (very rare cases where either the Government or a large corporation was the side to bring the case and win against individuals or such). In the case where costs are awarded, the side which doesnt get to pay has nothign to worry about, as they are not liable for their lawyers costs (tho they may be liable for a percentage, depending on what the Judge awards, it isnt a straight all or nothing), so the Lawyers must persue the other party for costs.
        • Generally, in the UK the loser pays most of the winner's costs (typically about 80% of their costs). It is possible but very unusual for the winner to be required to pay the loser's costs: generally this happens where the judge takes a dim view of the winner's conduct.
      • The SCO Group is unlikely to have any money left in 1-2 quarters

        In addition to that, any new lawsuits they start have to come out of their meager operating budget. Most of their cash is in a restricted reserve for their legal cases, but that ONLY covers the currently active cases. With their declining revenues and nonexistent future prospects, that will just make them crash faster.

        Anyone want to bet on whether they find any customers if they ever come out with their "Legend" software slated for early n

    • Re:The legal system (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Knowing a lawyer, the legal system in the UK doesn't put up with the shit the American system does.

      To put a finer point on it, the UK has some government offices that take in interest in SCO-like shakedown practices. The Office Of Fair Trading [oft.gov.uk] is concerned with fair business practices in general; misleading sollicitations being a particular area where they have legal powers.

      Furthermore, the Serious Fraud Office [sfo.gov.uk] is a likely place to turn to in the event SCO starts sending out letters to a lot of businesse
  • Since the SCOUndrels have already had their hinds whipped at the litigation mecca of the world (aka U.S.A.) for not having proved a thing, let alone "ownership of Linux IP", surely they can't expect large Linux users in the EU to fall at their mercy, beg forgiveness and pay up just for the fun of it? Even the UK courts aren't expected to be dumb enough not to ask SCO to prove their ownership of the said "intellectual property" before allowing any litigation to proceed.

    Mike Davis, senior analyst at Butler

  • Ooh, not wise. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:12PM (#11182115) Homepage
    Aren't slander/libel cases a LOT easier to win in the U.K.?

    Mr. McBride better be careful what he says about Linux over there...

    • Re:Ooh, not wise. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Film11 ( 736010 )
      No they're not O.o Where in God's name did you hear that? Anyway ontopic I haven't been following this story, at all, but from what I can see they say they own Linux? HAH!

      • I was under the impression (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mcc ( 14761 )
        That in the U.S. the burden of proof in a libel case falls on the person claiming libel to prove the claim unraesonable or untrue, whereas in the U.K. the burden of proof is on the accused to prove the claim true. [globaljournalist.org]
      • Anyway ontopic I haven't been following this story, at all, but from what I can see they say they own Linux?

        On behalf of the people of Earth, I would like to formally welcome you to our planet.
      • IBM created intellectual property and distributed patches (now included in Linux) implementing that intellectual property in Linux.

        SCO claims that IBM entered into a contract with AT&T whereby they agreed to grant ownership of all intellectual property that they joined with any of the System V source code while producing their implementation of a UNIX like system. Thus SCO claims that they have the right to restrict the use of Linux and its source code even though the intellectual property that IBM sup
    • The primary differences between UK/US libel/slander suits, are that in the US, the truth is a valid defense; and that public figures are have a much higher standard to prove libel/slander.
    • Hard to see how you can libel Linux, given that it isn't a person or a corporation.

  • so.. who is it? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:16PM (#11182129)
    that's the big question.. have SCO learned anything from all the fun and games in the States? Are they going to try for a bit of cheap court-cred by going for someone small, or are they going to take on a titan again?
    The biggest users of GNU/Linux must be the banks here, and the likes of RBOS/HBOS/HSBC are an obstacle on the same scale as IBM & Daimler-Chrysler.. Way, way deep pockets, and more lawyers than even SCO could possibly envision..
    In fact, given how things have worked out so far, and given who they would be up against in that sort of case, they would have trouble finding a competent solicitor to represent them. When it comes to crushing upstarts, the banks have been doing this longer than anyone...

    • Re:so.. who is it? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Working at HBOS right now, and linux is being phased out, along with the big iron. Standard development now is C#/.net. It's hard to get any other type of development past the standards bunch in Bristol.

      (excuse me being anon)

      • ...flips their entire network the bird.

        Can they really be that stupid? I mean, won't that level of stupidity be actionable when the sky really does fall and penguin little guts himself laughing?

        PS, how would they react to you running the C#/.net stuff up on Mono?

  • SCO v. DaimlerChrysler case is closed (Score:5, Informative)

    by petrofsky ( 702225 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:21PM (#11182150)

    As others have pointed out, the Peter Williams article linked to in the article was actually written in January [vnunet.com] and it's just a vnunet.com fuckup that it's now showing with a December date.

    If you want some fresh SCO info, here's the December 21 order [scofacts.org] that dismissed the remaining claim in SCO's complaint against DaimlerChrysler and thereby closed the case. Here's a write-up [scofacts.org] that includes information about some rules of Michigan's appeals court.

    • Sorry, my mistake. I didn't realise that this was a repeated article. I'm sorry for posting it as news. I am glad however, that this isn't some new SCO initiative.
    • Almost closed. The judge dismissed the case, but without prejudice, meaning that SCO does have the option to try again on the same matter. However, the judge ordered that if they DO try to file another suit over the matter they will have to pay all of DC's legal costs for the previous litigation. Basically, regardless of what SCO does DC will only have to pay the costs for one case.

      • Almost closed.

        I'm not a lawyer, but Judge Chabot is, and she's the one who signed her name below the sentence "THIS ORDER DISPOSES OF THE LAST PENDING CLAIM AND CLOSES THIS CASE", so I think we can take her word for it that the case is "closed".

        The judge dismissed the case, but without prejudice, meaning that SCO does have the option to try again on the same matter.

        She only dismissed the last remaining claim in the case without prejudice. The bulk of SCO's complaint was dismissed with

  • SCO Looking for Foreign Funds To Wage Legal War (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hemigod ( 807274 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:34PM (#11182200)
    It seems the strategy is to try to scare foreign companies into paying for licenses so that they can continue the legal fight in the USA. SCO in this country (USA) is being driven back under the rock that from which they came and they know it. They also cannot continue paying their attorneys out of their own pockets because the corporate funds they can afford to use in the "Linux IP War" are almost exhausted. "Ding" a dim bulb turns on over their collective heads. "Let's shakedown foreign companies to get the cash needed to sue more organizations." I'm sure all the UK companies will love the idea of helping to pay SCO's attorneys. Of course, the reward for doing this will be the invasion of Europe by SCO legal dogs to maul those companies that dared to ignore SCO. This will happen unless the UK companies act like their American counterparts and wait until the SCO vs IBM, SCO vs Novell cases conclude. Depriving SCO of revenue is the surest way to limit SCO's legal delaying tactics which will allow the American court cases to finish sooner than later.
    • Actually, let's send them over to the UK. SCO is operating on USD not on the British Pound. The current exchange rate is pathetic: 1USD to 0.52BP. So at that rate, SCO can be pounded broke faster. Now if they win, then they stand to gain more. But let's be honest, there going to lose...faster now.

  • Target them (SCO) (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    SCO can be found at the following address.

    SCO
    Croxley Business Park, Hatters Lane
    Watford WD1 8YN

    Not that I'm suggesting linux users should put dog-shit in their air-conditioning (which, as I scoped the building a while ago, is publicly accessible without much trouble)

    • Why offend dogs like that?

    • Why on earth would you do such a thing? You obviously haven't cleaned up after cats. No shit smells as bad as cat shit. (Remember, cats are more carnivorous than dogs; the more meat in an animal's diet, the worse its shit smells.)

      If you're going to do something evil with shit, use fresh cat shit.

    • Not that I'm suggesting linux users should put dog-shit in their air-conditioning

      Why bother? Would they notice any difference?

  • Lets hope (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Lets hope they bankcrupt themselves in legal bills. American culture is spreading to far, in the super market a few days ago, i couldnt get meat cut by the butcher because he said he wasnt insured.

  • Well, there is one difference.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Calibax ( 151875 ) * on Saturday December 25, 2004 @05:52PM (#11182281)
    As I recall, in the UK there is much less incentive to settle a legal argument (if you feel sure you are in the the right) because the loser of the court case pays the costs of both sides.

    Even if you win you might end up out of pocket. I recall a case where a man sued for slander and actually won the action, but he was awarded two pence in damages and ordered to pay the costs of both sides. And lawyers in the UK are no cheaper than their US equivalents.

    The UK courts (usually) have a good sense of fairness and even some measure of common sense, which seems remarkably uncommon in some courts. This cuts down immensely on frivolous law suits.
    • First you say that "the loser of the court case pays the costs of both sides" then "a man (...) won the action, but he was awarded two pence in damages and ordered to pay the costs of both sides."

      Which is it, does the court decide or is there some automatic rule? Both things can't be right.
  • That depends. Is England's legal system a joke? Or can the U.K. bench recognize a ludicrous American con when they see it?
  • I just got my Anti-SCO shirt today, you too can have one from thinkgeek!
  • Like the US suits that have been imminient for years?

    How many have they sued over Linux? Somewhere on the order of none

    • Re:Imminient (Score:2, Informative)

      by dosius ( 230542 )
      Autozone?

      Moll.

      • Re:Imminient (Score:3, Informative)

        by sqlrob ( 173498 )
        Nope.

        Autozone = unauthorized use of SCO libraries in porting to Linux. It wasn't over Linux itself.

        Everyone sued so far is a customer of SCO and has had a contract with them. There has not been a single Linux user not previously associated with SCO sued by SCO.

  • Liscensing localization (Score:3, Funny)

    by LaminatorX ( 410794 ) <sabotage.praecantator@com> on Saturday December 25, 2004 @06:43PM (#11182484) Homepage
    You know it's for the UK. They called it a "programme."
  • On the basis of a previous injunction, SCO Group GmbH were fined ($10,800) by a German court in May 2004 for not S'ingTFU about alledged IP violations and Linux. I have no firsthand experience of UK legal system and therefore have no appreciation as to the relevance of this. However I would imagine that it is still fresh in the minds of litigators over here. I could be wrong.
    • Anyone have a link to this? Did SCO try to defend themselves, or just
      give up and ignore it and lose? I'd love to see the arguments they
      used and the court's response to them.

  • Somewhat OT: EV1 Servers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr.Dubious DDQ ( 11968 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @07:06PM (#11182550) Homepage

    Speaking of SCO and "IP", I've noticed that for the last couple of months EV1 Servers has been advertising in "Linux Journal". They have the gall to put a claim of being "IP Compliant" at the bottom...

    Does EV1 really think it's a good idea to KEEP supporting SCO's FUD in front of a big audience of Linux people? Or do they figure that not many Linux people remember what was going on?

    Before, I could have written them off as "suckers" for falling for SCO's claims. Now, though, I can only assume they're doing it on purpose...

  • I don't know about the US court cases, but the The 1994 USL-Regents of UCal Settlement Agreement [groklaw.net] might prove useful, especially section 3c.

    It basically says the USL (SCOX's claimed successor in interest) agrees to not sue anyone who is not a licensee who uses "methods and concepts" (i.e. non-literal copying), which is what SCOX's allegations against Linux are based on.

    IANAL, and my .sig says what I am, so talk to one in your area, etc.

  • My advice to you, UK (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Saturday December 25, 2004 @10:45PM (#11183280)
    Go ahead and use Linux without fear of reprisal; SCO distributed Linux under the terms of the GPL in the UK. That means you are cleared to use it under the terms of the GPL.

    SCO/MS will never make specific claims anyway, so who cares WHAT they say.

    Seems like their WHOLE business model at this point is making noise.

    Yeah, the buzz is growing, but it's called Linux!

  • There is no 'UK' legal system (Score:4, Informative)

    by Simon Brooke ( 45012 ) * <stillyet@googlemail.com> on Sunday December 26, 2004 @07:56AM (#11184415) Homepage Journal

    Just as a point of information, people are writing as if there is one unified 'UK' legal system. There isn't. Scots law (in Scotland) is completely different from English law (England and Wales) - not even the same basic legal principles apply.

    I think Northern Ireland is different again but I'm not certain of that. The Isle of Man certainly has a separate legal system, as do the Channel Islands and other bits and bats that people think of as part of the United Kingdom but which technically are not. Even within Scotland, Orkney and Shetland use old Norse ('Udal') law for some civil matters which is different from Scots law.

    SCO are almost certainly talking about bringing action in the English courts against Linux users in England. But, as we've seen before many times, SCO talks a lot about bringing these actions. They don't actually do it. And given their 4th Quarter license revenues have dropped $10M to $120K [theregister.co.uk] over the past year, even the threats aren't working any more.

  • Oh go on, pleaaaaaassssssse...... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mormop ( 415983 ) on Sunday December 26, 2004 @12:38PM (#11185490)
    'Cos I already have 3 e-mails in my outbox that have been sitting there waiting to go since SCO first announced their intentions. The first (in case SCO advertise their licences in the press) goes to the Advertising Satandards Authority. The ASA is an organisation whose remit is to ensure that printed advertisments are legal and honest. As SCO has no proof of ownership and hence no definite claim any ad they place would fail requiring them to pull it or face regulatory action.

    The second is directed to the local (to SCO UK) police reporting an act of attempting to "obtain funds by deception". This law covers acts along the lines of falsley claiming ownership of something with a view to selling it. Until SCO prove a case one way or the other they have no such proof and no claim.

    The third is to the Trading Standards Office complaing of false claims being made.

    Between the three of them, it could get quite entertaining.

  • But the brits are all going to pay, right?
  • Some there may find it interesting:

    http://users.rcn.com/srstites/jacuse/sec.complai nt .v4.html

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close