They have no worries about illegal restraint of trade.
Posted Sep 7, 2004 16:54 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre
In reply to: Co-Op Puts A New Twist On Open Source (Information Week)
Parent article: Co-Op Puts A New Twist On Open Source (Information Week)
Note the companies named as co-op members:
Eight Minnesota companies, including retailer Best Buy Co., ....
[A]lso includes class-ring maker Jostens Inc. and bed maker Select Comfort Corp.
Cargill Inc. and Medtronic Inc. ... dropped out a year ago.
Those were all the names named in the article. None of them competes
with another: We've got a big-box store, a class-ring maker, a mattress
company, an agricultural keiretsu, and a medical-equipment maker. This
is not a monopoly or a price-fixing conspiracy in any sense that the
U.S. Code claims to
(Competitors can work on Free Software when it's peripheral to their
business (witness Apache). If they tried it with their crown jewels,
though, they'd be cutting their own throats: competitors would take the
code and run.)
Unfortunately, the whole thing seems to be based on more SCO FUD:
[Open Source] has ... raised legal issues about who owns the intellectual property that's flying around the Internet. SCO Group Inc. has sued AutoZone, DaimlerChrysler, and IBM for violating its Unix intellectual property through their use of the open-source Linux operating system.
The Avalanche group has tried to sidestep this issue by providing its members with legal protection....
Sounds like a law firm got a juicy sinecure.
to post comments)