[clug] SCO ordered to show Linux 'infringement'
kim.holburn at anu.edu.au
Mon Dec 8 05:24:51 GMT 2003
At 3:58 PM +1100 2003/12/08, Telek, John wrote:
>Could it be concievable that SCO/M$ are using this time to incorporate
>linux code into the SCO src so that they can get rid of Linux ????????
The best article I've seen on the underlying reasons for the SCO case are here:
Read down to this section:
However, even if all these strategies were to prove successful,
Microsoft can't completely lock the market again until the release of
Longhorn. Once customers are upgraded to Longhorn, however, their
ability to migrate out of Windows will quickly degrade as they
implement Longhorn-specific applications.
This gives Microsoft customers two or three years to migrate to Linux.
Of course these two or three years are probably Microsoft's worst
fear. They need something to deter migrations in the meantime. This
is where we need to recall this bit of the Halloween document VII
"'Linux patent violations/risk of being sued' struck a chord with US
and Swedish respondents. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Americans and
82% of Swedes stated that the risk of being sued over Linux patent
violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux. This was the
only message that had a strong impact with any audience."
And also this one:
"Messages that rely on an abstract discussion of intellectual
property rights are not effective.
"The discussion of IP rights needs to be tied to concrete actions."
Does that sound familiar?
Here we have a motivation for Microsoft. SCO may have their own
separate motivations, but they still play into Microsoft's hands.
Watch the FUD. What matters is not the exact word that is being said.
It is the innuendo. People in the acting profession call that the
"subtext" hidden under the text of their script. The FUD is saying to
decision-makers something like: "Did you check your liabilities? You
are going to be sued. Did you cover your bases?" From this
perspective, SCO's lawsuit is a scarecrow to give the illusion that
these questions are relevant.
>From: Andrew Pollock [mailto:andrew-clug at andrew.net.au]
>Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 9:16 AM
>To: Alan Sanderson
>Cc: linux at lists.samba.org
>Subject: Re: [clug] SCO ordered to show Linux 'infringement'
>On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 05:03:07PM +1100, Alan Sanderson wrote:
>> About time I reckon.
>What amazes me is that a organisation can go around making
>unsubstantiated claims for *9 months*. That's forever in the business
>world. They should be made to put up or shut up before they can file a
>case in the first place. Talk about character assassination. What if
>this happens a few times over with a few different sacrificial
>organisations vs Linux? Big business could start avoiding it like the
>plague purely because it's always entangled in vexatious lawsuits.
>The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments to it:
>(a) may be confidential and if you are not the intended recipient, any
>interference with, use, disclosure or copying of this material is
>unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
>please delete it and notify the sender;
>(b) may contain personal information of the sender as defined under the
>Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Consent is hereby given to the recipient(s) to
>collect, hold and use such information for any reasonable purpose in the
>ordinary course of TES' business, such as responding to this e-mail, or
>forwarding or disclosing it to a third party.
Network Consultant - Telecommunications Engineering
Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering
Australian National University - Ph: +61 2 61258620 M: +61 0417820641
Email: kim.holburn at anu.edu.au - PGP Public Key on request
Life is complex - It has real and imaginary parts.
Andrea Leistra (rec.arts.sf.written.Robert-jordan)
More information about the linux