Posted on 08/19/2003 7:39:56 AM PDT by Joe Bonforte
And, before the Linux guys point this out, I might as well get it out of the way: Yes, Microsoft is a major beneficiary. The longer and more confused the case becomes, the more Microsoft benefits from it.
I've stated before that I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that Microsoft is pulling the strings at SCO. I think SCO came up with this whole thing on their own. But I'm sure the execs at Microsoft were pleased when they heard about SCO's plans.
This shows absolutely nothing about what was copied from where, only that a common source was somehow involved.
If UNIX has copied from Linux, then the FSF has a cause of claim against SCO.
I think I can explain SCO's point of view on that. Suppose you were the author of a book, and another book turned up in the bookstores with portions of your book included, but with no acknowledgement or payment to you. You confront the author/editor, who says, "I'm sure it was accidental. Just tell me the parts that we copied, and we'll rewrite those."
In your mind, does that absolve the author or editor from responsibility for plagarism? Keep in mind that the originally printed books are going to be out there no matter what.
Similarly, if SCO has a copyright-infringement case, then even if Linux is changed today, there will be many copies of Linux still out there. And just saying, "Hey, it was all an accident" does not absolve those who appropriated intellectual property.
The big problem here, and the biggest difference from the book case posited above, is that no one owns Linux in any meaningful sense. Therefore, there is no easy way to assign responsibility for copyright infringement (or any other liability issues). Whether the Linux folks want to admit it or not, this is a serious flaw in Linux for business users. (Personal users don't have any realistic concern because it's not economic to sue them.)
If that can be proved, you are absolutely correct. I presume IBM's lawyers are trying to find evidence for that right now.
What this article does not mention is that much of the copied code is being challenged to be covered by IBM Patents..
This is called begging the question. You assume that some of the code was copied from SCOs IP to Linux. SCO asserts this but has produced no evidence. I could assert that I am Marie Queen of Romania but I would still be a Missouri redneck.
In your mind, does that absolve the author or editor from responsibility for plagarism? Keep in mind that the originally printed books are going to be out there no matter what.
Similarly, if SCO has a copyright-infringement case, then even if Linux is changed today, there will be many copies of Linux still out there. And just saying, "Hey, it was all an accident" does not absolve those who appropriated intellectual property.
Again, begging the question with a strawman added. No one is suggesting that any copying was accidental (if it exists) or that it would be ok if it were. If SCO has IP infringed by the Linux code, they are probably entitled to compenstion for actual damages. If any.
The big problem here, and the biggest difference from the book case posited above, is that no one owns Linux in any meaningful sense. Therefore, there is no easy way to assign responsibility for copyright infringement (or any other liability issues). Whether the Linux folks want to admit it or not, this is a serious flaw in Linux for business users. (Personal users don't have any realistic concern because it's not economic to sue them.)
Horse apples. The linux source and its evolution is as well documented as any such activity can be. The CVS archives contain records of every change ever made (well, after Linus released the first versions) and they are publicly readable.
I believe the article mentioned that anyone who wanted to see some of the evidence could do so if they signed a non-disclosure. So it is possible for any potential defendents to see if SCO has a prima facie case.
I think the damages are presumably for past actions, and hiding information on the details of the case doesn't exacerbate that. SCO has already made an offer to the defendents to come clean. If defendents believe they have no liability, then they will find out the rest of the information during the discovery process for the court case.
So I don't see where SCO is exacerbating any damages. It is merely preventing those who have presumably infringed in the past from hiding that infringement before SCO sues them.
By the way, this analysis doesn't mean I'm a cheerleader for SCO. I think their offer for licensing for Linux users was preposterously high. But I also think that from a legal standpoint, if they can prove massive copying of their intellectual property into Linux, then Linux users are in deep trouble, since they will have to bear the responsibility for using that copyrighted code.
It may still turn out that the alleged infringements are minor and inconsequential. If so, then SCO deserves all the scorn the Linux people have aimed at them, and they deserve to be heavily counter-sued. But I don't think any of us have access to enough information to decide whether SCO's case is a good one or not.
Only if it agrees, in effect, to be barred from the Linux business forevermore. No, plaintiffs cannot play games like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.