|
|
| Followup Letters to Lehman - Exh. B & C to Red Hat's Motion to Supplement |
 |
|
Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 02:54 AM EST
|
Here are Exhibit B, the SCO followup letter to the CEO of Lehman Brothers and an identical letter on the same date to the IT guy, Exhibit C, requesting a meeting to discuss their options, like cross my palm with silver or walk the plank. I wish I could have seen the look on the CEO Mr. Fuld's face when he received this letter. This means you now have the complete filing as text. We are working on a PDF. Tomorrow.
*******************************************************
January 16, 2004
Richard Fuld
Chairman & CEO
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
[address]
Dear Mr. Fuld:
I am following up on the SCO letter dated December 19th, regarding the use of SCO copyright protected code that has been incorporated into Linux without our authorization. As stated in the letter:
"No one may use our copyrighted code except as authorized by us.
". . . Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted UNIX code base and contributed to Linux for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without proper attribution. While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX operating systems and to assist UNIX licensees in the development process. The UNIX ABIs were never intended or authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux.
".. . Use in Linux of any ABI Code or other UNIX Derived Files identified above constitutes a violation of the United States Copyright Act. Distribution of the copyrighted ABI Code, or binary code compiled using the ABI code, with copyright management information deleted or altered, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. Section 1202. DMCA liability extends to those who have reasonable grounds to know that a distribution (or re-distribution as required by the GPL) of the altered code or copyright information will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under the DMCA. In addition, neither SCO nor any predecessor in interest has ever placed an affirmative notice in Linux that the copyrighted code in question could be used or distributed under the GPL. As a result, any distribution of Linux by a software vendor or a re-distribution of Linux by an end user that contains any of the identified UNIX code violates SCO's rights under the DMCA, insofar as the distributor knows of these violations."
I am requesting a meeting so that we may discuss the alternatives that are available to your firm. WE BELIEVE WE CAN PROPOSE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL BE AGREEABLE AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR YOU. I look forward to hearing from you. If you fail to respond to our efforts to pursue a licensing arrangement, WE WILL TURN YOUR NAME OVER TO OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL ACTION.
Please contact me immediately so we may schedule a meeting. My telephone number is (508) XXX-XXXX or email xxxxxxx.
Yours truly,
Gregory Petit
Regional Director, Intellectual Property Licensing
SCO
Encl: Letter December 19, 2003
Cc: Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO General Counsel
________________________________________________
January 16, 2004
Jonathan Beyman
Chief of Operations and Technology
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
[address]
Dear Mr. Beyman:
I am following up on the SCO letter dated December 19th, regarding the use of SCO copyright protected code that has been incorporated into Linux without our authorization. As stated in the letter:
"No one may use our copyrighted code except as authorized by us.
". . . Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted UNIX code base and contributed to Linux for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without proper attribution. While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX operating systems and to assist UNIX licensees in the development process. The UNIX ABIs were never intended or authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux.
".. . Use in Linux of any ABI Code or other UNIX Derived Files identified above constitutes a violation of the United States Copyright Act. Distribution of the copyrighted ABI Code, or binary code compiled using the ABI code, with copyright management information deleted or altered, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. Section 1202. DMCA liability extends to those who have reasonable grounds to know that a distribution (or re-distribution as required by the GPL) of the altered code or copyright information will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under the DMCA. In addition, neither SCO nor any predecessor in interest has ever placed an affirmative notice in Linux that the copyrighted code in question could be used or distributed under the GPL. As a result, any distribution of Linux by a software vendor or a re-distribution of Linux by an end user that contains any of the identified UNIX code violates SCO's rights under the DMCA, insofar as the distributor knows of these violations."
I am requesting a meeting so that we may discuss the alternatives that are available to your firm. WE BELIEVE WE CAN PROPOSE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL BE AGREEABLE AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR YOU. I look forward to hearing from you. If you fail to respond to our efforts to pursue a licensing arrangement, WE WILL TURN YOUR NAME OVER TO OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL ACTION.
Please contact me immediately so we may schedule a meeting. My telephone number is (508) XXX-XXXX or email xxxxxxx.
Yours truly,
Gregory Petit
Regional Director, Intellectual Property Licensing
SCO
Encl: Letter December 19, 2003
Cc: Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO General Counsel
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:08 AM EST |
WE BELIEVE WE CAN PROPOSE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL BE AGREEABLE AND ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE FOR YOU.
Hmm how about $0.00?
Seems SCO is already backing down since they were told no once now they are are
willing to reduce the price. The question is are they actually going to take
this to court?
Thanks to all the parties who provided information.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:14 AM EST |
| THIS LOOKS MORE LIKE A NIGERIAN 419 SCAM EVERY DAY. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:24 AM EST |
"Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C.
Section 1202. DMCA liability extends to those who have reasonable grounds to
know that a distribution (or re-distribution as required by the GPL) of the
altered code or copyright information will induce, enable, facilitate, or
conceal an infringement of any right under the DMCA"
Is it me or does
this mean SCO have to prove Lehman were aware of the alleged infringement
SCO is claiming ? And does the present set of legal stuff thats flying around
not muddy the reasonable grounds? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:47 AM EST |
Dr. Marshal Kirk McKusick is bound by the settlement. The copy of Net2 in
TUHS was supplied by McKusick himself:
Net2
README
1. It has no files missing and no USL copyright notices
were ever added - this is all according to the agreement so far.
2.
AT&T licensees could (and did) use and distribute Net2 after the
settlement.
Berkeley had a license to make Net2, and their fellow AT&T licensees could
certainly use it like all of the earlier encumbered versions.
3. The
settlement talked about "restricted code" and "restrictions".
The settlement
said you were supposed to call CSRG or USL for further information about
the
restrictions on Net2. Maybe they won't say what those are because
there really aren't
any restrictions. I don't really care. Net2 was released to
the public in July of 1991. Tens of thousands of copies were made. The
settlement in 1994 didn't change that. 32V was open sourced, so trade secret
restrictions are moot now. SCO
should call someone who cares about the
settlement restrictions on 4.4BSDLite. The BSD community made the deal with the
devil, not the public. All that any member of the public needs to do - according
to the law - is read the copyright notices in Net2. That's what the Copyrights
file at TUHS tells you to do. Why make this harder than it has to be? This stuff
isn't patented, and the Linux versions aren't true copies of the BSD versions
anyway.
4. The Regents claimed immunity under the 11th Amendment to
the US Constitution, but Judge Debevoise didn't immediately grant it,
because Congress
had just made the States liable for copyright infringement a
year earlier in 1990.
5.Here's Senator Patrick Lehy talking about
that subject today in 2004:
Both Florida Prepaid and
College Savings Bank were decided by the same five-to-four majority of the
justices. This slim majority of the Court threw out three federal statutes that
Congress passed, unanimously, in the early 1990s, to reaffirm that the federal
patent, copyright, and trademark laws apply to everyone, including the States.
Well that sounds like sour grapes because : CHAVEZ v ARTE
PUBLICO PRESS, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No.
93-2881 is still the governing case that says UC Berkeley cannot sued for
copyright infringement.
Really
Free BSD!
Leahy has introduced bills in 1999, 2001 and again in
2003 he couldn't get a co-sponsor this time.
Leahy Press
Release
Latest Status: They held hearings again
this summer and sent the Senate Bill to committee
H.R. 2344
Intellectual
Property Protection Restoration Act of 2003
6/5/2003
S. 1191
Intellectual Property
Protection Restoration Act of 2003
6/5/2003
These same ABI elements
have always been available - since 1991 - without any USL copyright notices
ever. Net2 was mentioned in the settlement press release, but it was left
untouched. SCO's claims seem to be moot.
Hope This Helps!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DK on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:12 AM EST |
| Wall Street's
Secret Affair With Linux [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grahamt on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:24 AM EST |
| From www.thescogroup.com
The Buy Now! Page
The
EULA
The Price List
From
http://sco.iwethey.com
Full text from EULA & Pricelist here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:33 AM EST |
An outrageously sinister turn of phrase - almost as if they were trying to sound
like Marlon Brando, complete with cotton wool in his cheeks:
WE BELIEVE WE CAN PROPOSE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL BE AGREEABLE AND ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE FOR YOU...
followed by:
WE WILL TURN YOUR NAME OVER TO OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL
ACTION.
The only bit they left out was "we'd like to make you an offer you can't
refuse".
Assumedly, if Lehmans don't pay up, SCO will leave a horses arse (Darl) in
Richard Fuld's bed...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:51 AM EST |
"... WE WILL TURN YOUR NAME OVER TO OUR OUTSIDE[my italics] COUNSEL FOR
CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL ACTION"
In other words, the SCO Group will sick
David Boies on you. If Mr. Contingency really works on contingency, then he will
have to consider whether the most likely outcome is worth his effort. I suspect
that the SCO Group will argue in Judge Robinson's court that its letter was just
a letter and that it had no intention of suing Lehman Brothers - I am assuming
here that the SCO Group is not dumb enough to sue Lehman Brothers, even as it
arguing that it has no intention to sue the Lehman Brothers.
My theory is that
Boies and his pals are most likely looking for a corporate end user who: (1) is
not covered by HP, Novell or RH idemnification; (2) is not a customer of IBM's;
(3) can't be bothered with fighting back. If my theory is correct, he and his
pals will avoid any corporate end user who sends back responses on HP, Novell,
RH or IBM letterheads. To the rest of the corporate users, Boies and his pals
will most probably send letters probing their ability to defend themselves.
Needless to say, the most clueless will be at greatest risk: Boies and his pals
are looking for easy money, not for a fight since they know they can't win it.
Boies has stayed well away from the courtroom so far while the SCO Group has
been taking its lumps, so I presume that Boies is capable of making rational
assessments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 05:48 AM EST |
Whenever I see that section in bold - it just reads like the sort of nigerian
spam that I get sent far too often.
I'd be very tempted to bin a letter that contained a line such as this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 05:55 AM EST |
"WE BELIEVE WE CAN PROPOSE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL BE AGREEABLE AND
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR YOU. I look forward to hearing from you. If you fail
to respond to our efforts to pursue a licensing arrangement, WE WILL TURN YOUR
NAME OVER TO OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL ACTION." -SCO
Hmmm. I wouldn't think that yelling would be appropriate. And bringing an
economically feasible solution had most likely been obtained already. So the
benefit to the company purchasing the SCO license is again clearly the time and
money saved in court defending themselves.
Why wouldn't SCO mention the finer qualities of their 20 year old software
technology they didn't create? Why not try a nice letter to companies
suppoesedly breaking the law mentioning how wonderful their product is and how
much more appealing it should be than the latest Linux kernel? This would surely
drive SCO license sales through the roof and save them a bundle suing everyone.
Another wonderful exhibit of SCO's intellegence level. Another show of SCO
intentions of suing for a living.
I guess when the business model is gone, all that is left is Darl.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JohnPettigrew on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 07:12 AM EST |
"No one may use our copyrighted code except as authorized by us"
This is bizarre, and I'm surprised no one seems to have comments on it yet.
Copyright surely gives no right to control the *use* of the work, only the right
to *reproduce* it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 07:35 AM EST |
This piece on the Beeb http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3498741.stm
Could explain why the judge in Delaware is snowed under.
Oh, and David Boies is representing Lord Black.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: odysseus on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 08:20 AM EST |
So exactly the same letter they sent to that Sport company?
So nothing really new, except they did a woopsie and sent
it to a Red Hat customer and are now going to get spanked
in court for it. Guess they forgot to check RH's client
list before licking that stamp.
The scatter-gun approach of sending as many letters as
possible in the hope that some % of suckers pay up is
looking more and more like the Spam Business Plan every
day :-) Obviously SCO's lawyers didn't sit the same bar
exam as Tom Cruise, or they would know the Feds will soon
be on their case with each one of the 1600 convictions to
be served consecutively...
John.
IANALBIWTF (I Am Not A Lawyer, But I've Watched The
Firm :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 08:47 AM EST |
See here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/28/35643.html
I wonder who this Liam Titbits is ? He sounds very familiar to me...
:-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nvanevski on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Just a flashback : IIRC, SCO had a job offering for an IP Licencing staff of
one. Is this the poor guy that got caught on the ad?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 09:20 AM EST |
As I recall, this letter is identical to the one sent to Just Sports, same
quotes, same threat. I wouldn't read in to this that SCO is picking on Lehman
Brothers any more than 1499 other lucky companies, this is a mail merged letter
they sent to everyone.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 09:24 AM EST |
If this is in New York City, can't Lehmann get Elliot Spitzer involved?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:31 AM EST |
I wonder if the reason that this letter was filed is that Lehman has more of an
interest in Red Hat than as just a vendor?
Do they have any known investment banking or other relationship? Is Lehman an
investor in Red Hat?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sphealey on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:55 AM EST |
OK, SCO sues someone on some grounds. Say DMCA, copyright violation, whatever.
The party sued makes as their first discovery request a copy of all materials
pertaining to the AT&T - Regents of the University of California suit,
including the "sealed" material.
SCO replies either "we don't have it", or "the terms of the seal
prevent us from releasing it".
Now what happens? How can an entity be sued for some behaviour when there is
reason to believe that justification for that behaviour exists in some
"sealed" court files? Could the party sued move for dismissal on that
basis? What would it take to get the record of that lawsuit
"unsealed"?
sPh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST |
Anybody taken a look at SCOX stock price this morning? As of around 11am it was
back above $14, even in spite of all the bad news concerning them. Looks to me
like either someone is "painting the tape", or the stock market has
suffered a total disconnect from reality.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT-SCOX - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:30 AM EST
- OT-SCOX - Authored by: superpat on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:33 AM EST
- OT-SCOX - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 01:28 PM EST
- OT-SCOX - Authored by: jccooper on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:37 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST |
Just looking at the last paragraph, without reading it, the form looks like a
Robert McElwaine essay.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cfitch on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST |
... some of SCO's claims.
From here: Daily Wrap and
Flow
SCO may be desperate but their mistakes on the legal
issues are telling to say the least. They continue to contradict themselves and
put up false claims that they certain know must fail in the end. They tell the
court in discovery that they do not have the settlement agreement between BSD
and AT&T. Yet, they cite that agreement in their threatening letters to
Linux customers (Lehman Brothers).
There really is something
fishy about this. We now have evidence of this contradiction in two seperate
court cases: in discovery for the IBM trial, and in the submissions for the
Redhat case.
I wonder if this can be used in either or both cases
against SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anwaya on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST |
| If Lehman Brothers need any license at all from SCO to use or distribute
anything in the Linux kernel, there's still a perfectly good license here.
For
some reason, there's an annoying dialog box that pops up, you can just cancel
that and proceed to download the very same code under the terms of the GPL. Just
look for kernel-source-2.4.21-138.i586.rpm. Today.
"Agreeable and
economically feasible" terms indeed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The $0.00 license from SCO is available now! - Authored by: JohnPettigrew on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:57 AM EST
- The 0.00 license from SCO is available now! - Authored by: Polar Weasel on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST
- The $0.00 license from SCO is available now! - Authored by: knala on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:28 PM EST
- The $0.00 license from SCO is available now! - Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:39 PM EST
- NOT a good idea, I think - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST
- NOT a good idea, I think - why not? - Authored by: Gerry on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST
- NOT a good idea, I think - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST
- NOT a good idea, I think - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 01:37 PM EST
- NOT a good idea, I think - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 01:58 PM EST
- WAIT A MINUTE! PJ? - Authored by: Tomas on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:41 PM EST
- Maybe not - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:21 PM EST
- NOT a good idea, I think - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 02:07 PM EST
- get the full system here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:31 AM EST |
| Since Darl so admires the RIAA and their tactics, perhaps he would like to
follow the results of the case discussed in the artilce, Morris mom turns tables in music industry lawsuit.
"The
Rockaway Township woman, who claims she was targeted for her teenager's school
research project, is among hundreds of individuals sued by the music industry
since last summer. Another 531 computer users were sued yesterday in "John Doe"
suits filed in Trenton, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Orlando.
Labels are using
"scare tactics (that) amount to extortion" in efforts to extract settlements,
Scimeca alleges in legal papers sent to the U.S. District Court in
Newark."
Sounds kind of familiar, doen't it. The countersuit claims
not only RICO violations, but also gets creative with other
possibilities.
"Scimeca's case also cites the Hobbs act: Paying the music
labels would deprive her of money she could spend on interstate commerce, her
lawyer explained. Because the so-called extortion papers were delivered via the
postal system, and potentially affect Scimeca's bank account, her countersuit
also cites mail and bank fraud laws.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:55 AM EST |
Excerpted from
http://healconsulting
.com/SCO/sco-letter.html#DMCA
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
("DMCA") was enacted to implement the WIPO Treaty. It concerns itself with
copying mechanisms, either ways to defeat copy protection or removal of
copyright notices. In 1997, while the DMCA was being formed, the The Register of Copyrights
said this to the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property:
The provisions in section 1202 do not
apply to those who act innocently. The acts covered all must have been performed
knowingly. In addition, the provision of false information is only unlawful
where it is done "with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal
infringement." Liability for the removal or alteration of information requires
the actor to know or have reason to know that his acts "will induce, enable,
facilitate or conceal" infringement.
Clearly, someone simply
using a copy of Linux downloaded from a web site or purchased commercially has
no liability under the DMCA.
The same document makes clear that the
Copyright Office searched the existing laws to see if they applied to alteration
of copyright management information. They found that existing laws had a
loophole around the management information itself. With that in mind, § 1202
makes more sense, and it explains why § 1202 covers only the removal or
alteration of copyright notices, not the mere creation of an infringing work
(since the existing law covered that already). In particular, 17 U.S.C. § 1202
refers only to works in which the copyright management information has been
removed, not to workalike products.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know
right from wrong) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Your Signature - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:03 PM EST |
Hey, I just noticed something....the follow-up letter to Lehman brothers quotes
two major paragraphs from their previous Dec 19th letter. However, if you
notice, they are quoting from the original form letter, not from
the actual letter that they sent.
Seems like SCO is really doing a
shoddy job. Red Hat and Lehman brothers now have copies of these letters in two
different versions. If SCO was deliberatly making alterations to the letters for
a (legal/cover-our-ass) reason, then they goofed, because ONE of the versions
was not meant to go to Lehman Brothers.
Mike A.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: henrik on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:05 PM EST |
| There is a new
SEC filing up on Edgar. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST |
Doesn't she know that she's driving us Groklaw-ers crazy? :-)
---
The only reason we retain the rights we have is because people *JUST LIKE US*
died to preserve those rights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 02:12 PM EST |
| The other day, someone asked why SCO would be stupid enough to take on a company
like the Lehman Brothers, when there are weaker targets around, who would be
less likely to mount a strong defense?
But that question assumes that SCO is
actually trying to win its lawsuits. Under the alternative theory, that SCO is
simply trying to damage Linux (possibly fronting for Microsoft), the choice of
Lehman Brothers makes more sense. That's because Lehman Brothers is not only a
Linux user, but has also been investing in Linux companies:
Google Search: lehman
brothers invest linux
Followers of the DOJ case will remember that part
of the complaint involved the way Microsoft's actions made venture capitalists
afraid to invest in competing technologies. It won't surprise me to see
Microsoft take even more direct steps to punish companies that help Linux. I
tend to view SCO's actions in that light.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SaveDrury on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 02:17 PM EST |
http://ou800doc.caldera.com/HDK_concepts/ddT_scgth.html
don't look at that link... it links to trade secrets and/or SCO proprietary data
and/or SCO Intellectual property.. whichever they think IBM stole.
(part of the code they claimed IBM put in linux)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 02:50 PM EST |
This is an interesting announcement considering SCO's position on the GPL
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040218/flw019_1.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnx4me on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST |
Hmm, I see SCO has added support for USB 2, big whoop, but now also bundles
PostgreSQL with the update.
Postgres is "...distributed under
the flexible BSD license" (www.Postgresql.org) - will SCO conform to
its conditions? They sure do enjoy riding on someone else's back.
{
// begin rant
As Postgres user I am disgusted to even have the name
associated with SCO.
I suppose SCO will want me to ante up some $
for Postgres now since it's been assimilated into the Borg. I wonder how all of
the PostgreSQL developers feel?
} // rant end
Bob
I'd
post the link but reading it will only ruin your dinner...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:48 PM EST |
I hope Lehman Brothers stands fast, and doesn't fall for SCO's extortion
attempts.
I would like to see the Lehman Brothers' next response do the following:
- Re-state that they received their Linux from Red Hat.
- Re-state that they believe they have full rights to use Linux and do not
require any permission or license from SCO.
- Re-state that they are fully aware that there is an ongoing dispute between
SCO and Red Hat.
- Re-state that Lehman Brothers is not in a position to resolve the issue and
that SCO should be dealing with Red Hat.
- Re-state that Lehman Brothers will consider the matter once SCO has resolved
the issue in court and proven that they have a legal right to demand license
fees for Linux.
Then, in keeping with SCO's "turn your name over to our outside
counsel" threat, I think Lehman Brothers should finish up by saying
something along these lines:
"If SCO continues to press this matter, while the question of SCO's legal
claim on Linux is still before the courts, and knowing that Lehman Brothers is
the wrong party to resolve that question, then Lehman Brothers will be forced to
consider SCO's demands as attempted fraud. In that case, Lehman Brothers would
have no choice but to turn copies of all related correspondence over to the
Attorney General, along with a request for fraud charges to be brought against
SCO, it's executives, and its attorneys."
IANAL, so I don't know to what extent the above follows the law, but it's what I
would like to see happen.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:31 PM EST |
In the hi-res pdf, petit is calling from New Brunswick, Canada (506) instead of
Mass. (508).
---
carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" (IANAL and so forth and so on)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 09:25 AM EST |
I there any way for any firm who received one of these SCOG extortion
letters to get a legal declaration that their claims are entirely without
merit?
It seems to me that by use of "Groklaw's Greatest Hits",
especially the analysis of the Linux ABI and Caldera's role in it, and contents
of the $echo newsletter from USL/ATT, the claims they are making in the letter
are shown groundless.
This even ignores the other issues that bear, like the ownership of the
copyright and propriety of going after end users.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
