Australians told: Ignore SCO
p2pnet.net News:- Claims made by SCO are “akin to a complete stranger knocking on your door one day, demanding rent in arrears for a portion of your office,” says the new Open Source Industry Australia group, continuing:
“You have had no dealings with this stranger beforehand and he offers you no proof whatsoever that he owns what he says he owns. He does, however, threaten to sue you if you don’t pay.”
OSIA suggests Australian organisations should ignore requests from SCO for licence payments.
“Do not respond in any way, seek legal advice, taking this document to your lawyer, and also submit the received documentation from SCO as evidence to the Australian Competion & Consumer Commission (ACCC.),” it recommends in its position paper, stating in the executive summary:
1) SCO launched this lawsuit as a cynical share-price pump and dump exercise
2) SCO has dropped the key argument in its case against IBM.
3) SCO’s claims that companies such as Computer Associates have bought its Linux Intellectual
Property (IP) Licenses are false.
4) Unless proven, there is no infringing code in Linux
5) Linux does not infringe on any SCO IP with respect to Application Programming Interfaces (API)
6) Linux does not infringe on any SCO IP with respect to Application Binary Interfaces (ABI)
7) SCO’s case will fail because it cannot prove it owns any Unix copyrights nor can it prove that any
infringing Unix code is in Linux
The AutoZone and Daimler-Chrysler defendants were not sued for using Linux
9) Microsoft is the only reason that SCO is still in business.
OSIA says it believes Australian enterprises and individuals should continue to use Linux: “SCO’s threats are no barrier to the ongoing adoption of the operating system”.
SCO’s attempts to offer proof of misappropriated source code, “which would lend some credence to their year-long claims, have all been proven false,” states the group, going on:
“SCO have dropped the ‘trade secrets’ aspect of their court case against IBM5, showing weakness in their previous arguments. Finally, Novell has produced evidence which indicates that SCO doesn’t even own the intellectual property purportedly inserted into Linux.”
In essence, says the group, “we see SCO’s actions, of demanding money from organisations that they have no business dealings with, for property which has not been proven to be theirs, akin to conduct not condoned by Australia’s Trade Practices Act (1974).
“As such, we commend all current and future Linux users to act accordingly, by lodging complaints with the ACCC and doing nothing to engage SCO.”
