...and if SCO is right...? [LWN.net]

...and if SCO is right...?

Posted May 22, 2003 4:44 UTC (Thu) by mmarkov (subscriber, #4978)
In reply to: ...and if SCO is right...? by JoeBuck
Parent article: ...and if SCO is right...?

I am surprised this measure is necessary.
Isn't the innocence of the consumer (I mean,
the one that receives) pre-supposed? For
instance, when you buy something, you don't
need a special certificate that it is not
stolen/smuggled/etc. If it turns out afterwards
that the commodity is somehow illegal, you
are clean, unless it is proven that you bought
it, knowing about the illegality.

(Log in to post comments)

...and if SCO is right...?

Posted May 22, 2003 8:27 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Only clean in the sence that you will not be punished for the theft. You still have to give the stolent good back to the real owner, without refund of your costs, unless you can find the person who sold it to you and demand a refund from him/her.

...and if SCO is right...?

Posted May 23, 2003 16:46 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

But having a signed transfer of ownership document doesn't avoid that. If it's found to be stolen property, the recipient will still lose it, and his recourse is still only with the party that provided it.