|
|
|
| Authored by: jmc on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 07:37 AM EDT |
Whilst I fully support what you say, I wonder if "frivolous" is the
right word?
"Frivolous" suggests to me trivial and not serious.
SCO's allegations against IBM weren't "frivolous", in my opinion. They
were serious. However they were clearly totally fraudulent, a word I would
suggest be substituted.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
Its a clear warning sign to the next group that wants to try
what SCO did that the end isn't going to be pretty.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
The entire SCO case gave several major lessons:
1. You don't sue IBM first. You pick a small defenseless firm that will settle.
Set precedent. Sue a bigger company. Etc. Work your way up.
2. That copyright isn't the right tool to use. Patents are. To use copyright,
SCO had to show actual code in Linux, which they could not do -- nevermind not
even owning the coyprights they were suing over. That patent system is
sufficiently broken, and patents are sufficiently vague or broad as to make this
attack work without the fact based work of code comparisons. Patents are also
the right tool, because patent litigation is very expensive -- as SCO discovered
being on the wrong end of 4 patent counterclaims from IBM -- which IBM later
dropped in order to expedite the case due to SCO's stalling.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
