Re: [tlug] Re: is there a real possibility that Sco get what it claims?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

>>>>> "Shawn" == Shawn  <javajunkie@example.com> writes:

    Shawn> At some level, investors need to be protected from false
    Shawn> statements by companies.  If now is not the time, then when
    Shawn> would be?

(a) Investors are protected by the Securities and Exchange Law, as
Moglen points out in the article you quote.  (b) Muzzling SCO in
Germany doesn't protect SCO investors---that money is long since
sequestered in SCO bank accounts.  So what are you driving at?

    Shawn> Would you dispute that Darl is trying to swindle people.

With respect to potential licensees, yes, I would dispute it.  He's
bluffing.  He'd better have a damn good hole card, is all I can say,
because his bluff is going to be called.  I don't know what happened
with respect to the investors.  "Never attribute to malice that which
can adequately be explained by stupidity."  My main hypothesis is
incompetence---look at the fact that they were still distributing
Linux after the letters went out---and not a swindle, but I really
don't know.

There's no question that he's playing rough, and that this suit is not
a productive exchange of one good for another.  I don't like what he's
doing, and I think it's a damn shame that some smart people get their
kicks and/or their income by playing these legal games instead of
writing programs, say.  But that's not the crime called "swindling" as
long as he stays within the rules.  As far as I know for now, he has
done so.

    Shawn> Are you asserting that attempted swindling be legal?

No.

    Shawn> Is it only a crime when successful?

No.

    Shawn> Until he has a green light on ownership, he is engaging in
    Shawn> blackmail to up his revenue.

I believe that, by the legal definition of blackmail, that is false.
IANAL, of course, but I think it's only blackmail if you can prove
that he knew that he didn't have the right to license Unix for a fee.

    Shawn> Should that be allowed under "free speech"?

But demanding license payments isn't an issue of "free speech".  It's
a normal business practice.  I have no objection to a restraining
order that says that SCO may not take alleged licensees to collection
for non-payment until the ownership issue is settled.  Of course
anybody who elected not to pay promptly would not only have to cough
up, but pay interest, too, if and when SCO wins.  But as I remember
the description of the German court order, SCO is not allowed to say
"yes" if a reporter from a German paper asks them if they own the Unix
copyright and it applies to the Linux kernel.

    Shawn> I would assert no-- he has plenty of time to get his
    Shawn> revenues once ownership is clear.

Huh?  If SCO does in fact have the legal right to demand license fees,
why should they wait for what is rightfully theirs?  If your landlord
misrecords your payment, and claims you didn't pay, are you morally
obliged to move out until you present a cancelled check to the court?

Furthermore, either they can demand the fees in arrears, in which case
the earlier they warn those who will have to pay the better, or they
can't, in which case they're foregoing real revenue that is rightfully
theirs.

As for "plenty of time", think again.  SCO is currently skating on the
edge of bankruptcy.  If Darl waited until the case was over to claim
the revenues he says he has a right to, the investors _would_ sue him.

This argument only makes sense if you prejudge the c