On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Mike Cheponis <mac@Wireless.Com> wrote:

> Hmmm.... SCO is certainly making life unpleasant for many.  -Mike
> 
> 
...
> "But what about BSD?" I asked. Sontag responded that there
> "could be issues with the [BSD] settlement agreement," adding that
> Berkeley may not have lived up to all of its commitments under the
> settlement.
>

what an oily reptile. He's trying to keep his option to sue as open as
possible, even though he has nothing in the area of cause. Until he makes
some sort of concrete claim, it's probably best to ignore him and show "no
fear", else he'll assume that we think we are guilty of something.

> "So you want royalties from FreeBSD as well?" I asked. Sontag
> responded that "there may or may not be issues. We believe that
> UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent
> computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived
> from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual
> property)."
> 

Unless all the people who went to the first conferences where unix was
unveiled, ~1973, were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, or the
algorithms involved where patented, they don't have a leg to stand on. 
Yes, there was a copyright on the UNIX source, but that does not prevent
someone from rewriting the code to produce a similar product. Their right to
make an intellectual property claim ended when AT&T made the first public
disclosure. Copyrights and patents are not the same thing.

Can we please have tort reform before I have no computer OS, no
medical care, and no fun of any kind? If we switched to a loser-pays
system, or at least some variation on it, SCO might think twice before
going on this little fishing trip. As it stands now, they've got little to
loose and quite a bit to gain.


-- 
Harry Waddell
Caravan Electronic Publishing
-----------