Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The Davidson Email, Red Hat, and the Lanham Act (Groklaw)
Groklaw takes a
look at Red Hat and the Lanham Act. "Let's go back and take a
look at what Red Hat is claiming in its lawsuit against The SCO Group. I
think it will help you to understand why SCO is trying to spin, spin, spin
so hard and what they are probably really afraid of. At least, I'd be
scared, if I were them."
(Log in to post comments)
The Davidson Email, Red Hat, and the Lanham Act (Groklaw) Posted Jul 19, 2005 15:00 UTC (Tue) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] I'll looking forward to the SCO shareholder lawsuits (against SCO).
SCO shareholder lawsuits Posted Jul 22, 2005 21:04 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] What would shareholders have to gain by that? Who do you think pays when a corporation loses a lawsuit?
The Davidson Email, Red Hat, and the Lanham Act (Groklaw) Posted Jul 19, 2005 20:36 UTC (Tue) by dsime (guest, #5764) [Link] Ahh, ... So will MS be able to sue them?
Because they based their purchase of licenses, that they really didn't need, on SCO's false advertising.
The Davidson Email, Red Hat, and the Lanham Act (Groklaw) Posted Jul 19, 2005 20:59 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] remember, MS paied SCO to use Unix technology in windows, not in Linux (and Sun paied SCO to use Unix technology in Solaris)
the fact that there is no code from Unix in Linux doesn't mean that those two companies didn't need to pay for the use they were makeing (now the question of if SCO even owns the copyrights is a different story, that affects everyone, but dom't mix their payments up with news that Linux doesn't infringe anyway)
David Lang
You seem to be somewhat naive.. MS statement on the agreement says it all Posted Jul 19, 2005 21:52 UTC (Tue) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] The announcement of this license is representative of Microsoft's ongoing commitment to respecting intellectual property and the IT community's healthy exchange of [intellectual property] through licensingSee? This is corporate spin-slimeball talk for "SCO, you fight these bastartds, we support you." This particlar blahblah-producer goes by the name of Brad Smith, general counsel and senior vice president at Microsoft. The quote is here.
You seem to be somewhat naive.. MS statement on the agreement says it all Posted Jul 22, 2005 21:15 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] It would take a very, very liberal court to take that statement as proof that MS wasn't really buying a UNIX license but purchasing legal action against IBM based on SCO's assurances that it had a case. The court would have to throw away all of the official documentation and direct evidence about the MS-SCO transaction and replace it with your reading between the lines of a press release!So I agree that the Davidson memo doesn't in any way give MS grounds for getting its money back from SCO.
You seem to be somewhat naive.. MS statement on the agreement says it all Posted Jul 24, 2005 12:36 UTC (Sun) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] Oh, pleaaaaase. I didn't not argue that the MS quote consituted rock solid legal proof of MS intentions, now, did I? (A standard Logical Falacy you commit here: distort your opnonents position and attack the distorted position).
However, I think you must agree that to any reasonable person who is able to interpret corporate PR-speak, the MS quotes means what I take it to mean, namely that MS sponsered SCOG's Linux attack this way.
You seem to be somewhat naive.. MS statement on the agreement says it all Posted Jul 24, 2005 17:07 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I tried hard to think of what point you might be making that could be right, but in context, the only argument I can see that you could be making is the wrong one that Microsoft has a case against SCO, based on the its statement. You responded, seemingly in rebuttal, to a post that said Microsoft doesn't have a legal case.Also, you appear to be using the same technique -- exaggerate my argument into something that can be rebutted. I didn't argue that you were mistaken in saying that MS has a rock solid legal case (which I agree would be nonresponsive, since you didn't say that). I argued that you were mistaken in saying that MS has at least a whisper of a case. From the context, I took that to mean what you were saying. Setting aside the validity of the debate and also legal issues, I actually do have to disagree that the MS statement shows that MS intended to sponsor SCO's Linux attack. I didn't see it that way until you pointed it out. I think the MS statement makes perfect sense as just saying, "we're setting an example by buying a license for the software we copy." There's plenty of context for that interpretation: Microsoft has been fighting copyright violation, in a public way, for years. MS is usually on the side of the copyright holder. Unix gives MS an opportunity to demonstrate that it practices what it preaches. Many people had publicly denigrated SCO's copyright claim, both on Linux and on UNIX. MS here demonstrates that it sides with copyright holders over copiers in a controversial case. Microsoft wants the same consideration for MS products.
|
|
||||||||||||