LinuxQuestions.org - TechWorld.com: SCO names first target in Linux copyright battle

- General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)

- - TechWorld.com: SCO names first target in Linux copyright battle (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/techworld-com-sco-names-first-target-in-linux-copyright-battle-153613/)

TechWorld.com: SCO names first target in Linux copyright battle

SCO names first target in Linux copyright battle
Car parts chain AutoZone gets it in the neck.

By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service

SCO has finally named the first company it will sue for using Linux - the open-source operating system that SCO feels infringes its Unix copyrights.

Car parts chain AutoZone, headquartered in Memphis, is the lucky punter. And SCO has waited until today, when AutoZone is announcing its second-quarter results, to give it the bad news.

AutoZone sales are up 3.4 percent to $1.16bn although that is unlikely to be the main topic of conversation during a pre-arranged press conference later today. The company has yet to make an official statement.

It is also SCO's second-quarter earnings announcement day. It has a noticeably different set of results - down 18.9 percent year-on-year to $11.4 million.

Previously SCO has taken out lawsuits against IBM, Red Hat and Novell but, despite numerous assurances, had not attempted to sue a Linux customer. The suit against AutoZone, filed in Nevada, asks for injunctive relief and damages to be determined in a trial.

It sued IBM in March 2003, claiming that IBM illegally contributed SCO's intellectual property to the Linux source code. It has since claimed that Linux contains code copied directly from the AT&T Unix software SCO acquired in 2000 and has warned Linux users they could be sued unless they purchase $699-per-server software licenses from SCO.

SCO's critics say that the company has yet to prove its case, and that SCO's license, called the Intellectual Property License for Linux, amounts to little more than extortion.

In November, SCO claimed to be just 90 days away from launching a lawsuit against an end user but the deadline passed recently without a suit having been filed. The company was late in filing the suit because it had hoped to settle with customers before bringing litigation, said Blake Stowell, an SCO spokesman. "Our hope, as a company, was that litigation would be a last resort," he said. "In the end, I think we took a little bit more time to work things through with customers rather than go ahead with litigation."

Though SCO is engaged in lawsuits with Linux distributors Red Hat and Novell, it has not sued either company over the alleged copyright violations. When asked why his company had decided to sue end users rather than Linux distribution vendors, Stowell said: "If we did that, in some cases it could really hurt Linux, which is not necessarily something we want to do as a company. ... If you go and sue a Linux distributor, that could potentially hurt the Linux marketplace. Frankly, the GPL pushes all of that liability to the end user," Stowell added.

If Linux does illegally contain SCO's copyrighted code, the company could have a copyright infringement case against Linux users, because users inevitably copy software when they use computers, said Jeffrey Neuberger, a partner with Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner, who has been following the case. "If you buy something preinstalled on your hard drive, you're making a copy of that by installing your software into RAM," he said.

Should SCO prove its case, the company could seek statutory damages that range anywhere from $200 to $150,000 per infringement, Neuberger said.

Lawsuits against Linux customers could also further SCO's case against IBM, which was recently amended to include copyright infringement claims. "It's sort of a classic way of putting a pressure on a company like IBM," said Neuberger.

But the suit could also create liabilities for SCO, he said. "If their lawsuit isn't well founded, they could at a minimum be subject to sanctions," he said. "If IBM feels that the SCO claim isn't well founded, they could actually sue SCO for tortious interference"

TechWorld.com article

What I find interesting is AutoZone was primarily a Microsoft shop until recently... and everyone knows MS has been funneling money into SCO's war chest. It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but one really has to wonder why they were chosen first. In any case, I'm pretty sure it's not for the reason Stowell gave: they don't want to hurt Linux. What a crock of crapolla! :o

And the absurdity plods still farther! :p

Quote:

Originally posted by 2damncommon
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40304174457123

Who is M$?

micro$oft

And NOW the good news! :p

And more "progress" in the land of crap!

<sarcasm> This guy really knows what he's talking about!

Quote:

If Linux does illegally contain SCO's copyrighted code, the company could have a copyright infringement case against Linux users, because users inevitably copy software when they use computers, said Jeffrey Neuberger, a partner with Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner, who has been following the case. "If you buy something preinstalled on your hard drive, you're making a copy of that by installing your software into RAM," he said.

I suppose when I listen to a copyrighted CD I'm breaking copyright there too 'cause I'm making a copy of the work inside my brain!</sarcasm>

What a MORON The playing of a CD is a terrific analogy!

Quote:

Originally posted by vasudevadas
...I suppose when I listen to a copyrighted CD I'm breaking copyright there too 'cause I'm making a copy of the work inside my brain!</sarcasm>

Actually, that bit of sarcasm is a valid point...........here's a response (number 20) from an old alt.privacy newsgroup thread currently archived at Google Groups, called "Remove the EULA before installing your software"...

Quote:

From: Eric Lee Green (eric@badtux.org)
Subject: Re: Remove the EULA before installing your software
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Date: 2002-05-04 09:31:00 PST

In article <20020504081634.24523.qmail@gacracker.org>, Doc.Cypher ruminated:
> Which, as I point out above, is the issue here. You don't have to copy the
> wallpaper to use it. You *do* have to copy the software to use it. That
> requires a license otherwise you are breaching copyright.

*BULLSHIT*. If you buy copyrighted text, you automatically are granted
"fair use" rights, one of which is the right to read it (i.e., copy
its contents to the retina of your eye, from whence the content is
then interpreted by the grey matter in your brain).

If a blind person buys a book, he has the right to use one of those
"blind reader" programs to read it aloud to him. He owns the book.
He has the right to read the book in any way he wishes. The fact
that reading the book in this instance requires running a scanner
(scanning a page) hooked to a computer (i.e., a temporary copy of
a page for purposes of reading the book) is irrelevant.

In the case of software, the way to "read" this book is to read it
into computer memory. That doesn't require a license of any sort.
That is simple "shifting", as covered by the provisions of the Betamax
case (which granted you the right to make temporary copies of
copyrighted videos broadcast over the airwaves in order to exercise
your fair use rights).

Now, I know about all the bullshit that software publishers have
trotted out in an attempt to say that software is somehow different
from books and video tape. But I design these damned things for a
living, so I know the truth: the only difference between a book and a
computer program is that one is copied via light beams to the retina,
while the other is copied via light beams (CD-ROM laser) to the
computer's memory, in order to make use of its contents.