Thu, Apr 17, 2014, 3:38 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 22 mins.

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SCO GRP INC (THE) Message Board

  • mrwhiskers666 mrwhiskers666 Sep 2, 2003 9:18 PM Flag

    On the other hand, let's invoice

    "The SCO Group is turning up the heat in its attempt to impose Unix license fees for Linux use: It plans to begin sending invoices to companies before the month is out.

    The Lindon, Utah-based company announced in August that it wants corporations to buy Unix licenses for using the similar Linux operating system, asking $699 for a single-processor Linux server. But Tuesday, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said the company will begin the more active approach of sending invoices requesting payment to commercial Linux users, "probably some time this month."

    http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5070583.html?tag=cd_mh

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • >>whereas SCO have as yet NOT proved that any of their IP is in linux.. <<

      Agree 100%. I would also add: it is idiotic to suggest that scox doesn't know that scox needs to prove this, before scox has the right to mail invoices.

      In this case, fraudulent intent would be a cinch to prove.

    • Sorry my point was supposed to be along the lines of that it is well known that microsoft's IP *IS THEIR* IP (Well apart from the stolen bits but that is another story) whereas SCO have as yet NOT proved that any of their IP is in linux..

    • "say for example when you copy your friends windozeXP CD and install it on your machine. Microsoft has every right to invoice you for your installation of said software."

      No, I don't think msft can invoice you. Msft can sue you. You may even face criminal charges. But msft can just invoice.

      Certainly msft can not invoice you until msft has proof.

    • >>Here's a better one. Ever receive an un-ordered book in the mail with an invoice attached? "If you like this book, keep it and send us the money. Otherwise, return it to us."<<

      That may have been the case a few years ago but I think that practice has been outlawed.

    • "say for example when you copy your friends windozeXP CD and install it on your machine. Microsoft has every right to invoice you for your installation of said software."

      Yes they have.. But it it well known that microsoft own their own code.

      "Its really similar to the SCO case.. IBM gave away SCO code to the linux kernel. You installed linux on your machine, SCO can now invoice you for it."

      Not without proof.. So far SCO have provided no hard proof that any of their code is contained within Linux.

      Let say that I claim that some of my IP is contained within windows and send you an invoice for $1000 for using that IP. At the same time I am not going to tell anyone what code it actually is. Are you going to hand me your $1000?

    • <<say for example when you copy your friends windozeXP CD and install it on your machine. Microsoft has every right to invoice you for your installation of said software>>

      We have been going round and round on this since early last night (the board, not you and me), so I am going to put my two cents in one last time, then agree to disagree.

      No, I do not believe Microsoft has a legal right to send you an invoice in that case. They do have a right to send you a cease and desist letter, and they have the right to sue you, but I do not believe they have the right to send you an invoice.

      The Record companies cannot invoice you for your MP3's either, but they sure can take you to court for damages.

      In any case, if I do get an invoice from SCOX, I will most certainly test out the theory it is mail fraud.

      -Dio

    • <Then why are you here?>

      I like to be entertained watching emotional people speak authoritatively on issues of which they really have little knowledge or understanding. It's usually good enough just to watch the chest beating between the longs and shorts. In this case, the Linux geeks, who have little if any knowledge of how business or the law work, have infested this discussion making it even more entertaining. I look in every week or two just to see the what the current fodder for discussion is. It's funny to see the shorts and geeks get more ridiculous in their assertions as SCOX rises and the heat increases. The longs aren't much better in their gloating.

      Again, I don't think SCO will get much if anything out of this, but I'm willing to allow that the potential exists for them to prevail. That's something the "ignorant" shorts and geeks can't even imagine, much less allow. A closed mind is a wasted mind. That's why I halfway hope that SCO prevails, just so these people get a much needed dose of reality.

      I'll leave you to your debate, for now. :-)

    • I wouldn't dare to send my linux CDs to SCO without some postage...I think I can guess the right amount...it'd be one way to put in my 2 cents worth.

      Maybe we can get ledtie's projected 10% compliance from the Linux community on a return the CDs to SCO project.

    • BZZT. Your opinion is merely an opinion. In practice, you might be right that fraud charges are unlikely, but for completely different reasons. The only reason law enforcement would not stomp all over SCO would be that they are busy with bigger fish, or feel they lack the competence or resources to investigate.

      <<Again, for a Mail Fraud conviction to occur, a prosecutor would have to prove that SCO INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS. Were that to occur, it would also mean they are perpetrating a fraud on the court in their other IP litigation, if they don't really believe their assertions. People, that isn't going to happen.>>

      The key here is intent. Admittedly, intent can be hard to prove, but in this case we have a very long trail of misrepresentations of fact, public debunking of those "facts", and public record (in form of interviews and press releases) that the perpetrators were aware of this debunking. There even are public statements that they are aware of the discussion on this message group.

      If they proceeded to send out invoices AFTER they learned about the true state of affairs, INTENT is proven.

      SCOX know this, which is WHY they are very hesitent to send out threse invoices. For every invoice they send out, they risk that FTC, the postal inspectors, FBI, or a state AG will get involved. Defending themselves in these courts from criminal charges is something they can ill afford, both in terms of the time it will take, the legal expenses, and how it can affect their other ongoing litigation.

      To predict SCOX actions you have to consider their true goals:

      1)Keep stock price at a high level as long as possible (Especially true for McBride, who is not vested yet. If things blow up too soon, he won't make a penny).

      2)Stay out of jail

      Everything else is gravy. Unfortunately for SCOX management, their incompetence and greed got the better of them, and they went for more gravy. My prediction is that McBride will not make much off his options, and that the card house will collapse long before SCOX's day in court with IBM.

      I also predict that the mess will be so messy, that we'll see see a whole slew of lawsuits between Canopy companies in the aftermath.

      McBride and the execs was very aware of this risk, which is why they amanded the bylaws of the company, so that they could not get sued by the company for conducting business.

    • Mail Fraud:
      h++p://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/statutes.htm

      "If the Postal Service sues the promoter based on evidence obtained by postal inspectors, it need only prove a particular representation was made, that it is false, and that money or property was sought through the mail."

      Since the only 'proof' SCO has shown so far is FALSE, it will be mail fraud.

    • View More Messages
 
SCOXQ
0.020.00(0.00%)May 23 10:22 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.