| |||||||||||
SCO's new offensiveSCO's new offensivePosted Jul 22, 2003 14:20 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137)In reply to: SCO's new offensive by raph Parent article: SCO's new offensive Actually, I think it is fair. What they're doing is threatening people and companies using nothing other than the US legal system. Yes they are, but that's entirely SCO's transgression, not the US court systems. One of the foundations of the US legal system is the concept of "due process." I would be very concerned if this principle were set aside. Now that would be something worth complaining about. In other words, SCO can't be found guilty before they are found guilty. You may think this would be fine, but what if the circumstances were different? Say, for example, that you or I were punished for some crime before we had been tried in court, based soley on public opinion? This is the case in some parts of the world; places that I'm glad I don't live. It may be evident that SCO is in the wrong to you and I, but this has not yet been tried in court.
(Log in to post comments)
guilty plaintiff? Posted Jul 23, 2003 9:06 UTC (Wed) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] SCO can't be found guilty before they are found guilty.Actually, SCO is the plaintiff in the IBM case (which is the only legal case that has been brought forth so far), and "guilty" is not a concept which applies to the plaintiff.
guilty plaintiff? Posted Jul 23, 2003 17:09 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] When I said "guilty" I was referring to the accusations against SCO by members of the Linux community, specifically within the context of this discussion, not the SCO v. IBM case. Sorry about the confusion, I should have been more explicit about this.It seems resonable (to me) to speculate that SCO's recent actions may result in additional trips to court, especially now that they are attempting to extort protection money from people without even saying what it's for.
guilty plaintiff? Posted Jul 31, 2003 16:10 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] > SCO can't be found guilty before they are found guilty.Actually, here in Germany, SCO has been stopped by court to repeat its lies without proof. We have consumer protection laws. The stuff SCO tells (without proof) is against those consumer protection laws. SCO has been found guilty. And they did stopp telling their lies in Germany (except that those lies they tell elsewhere still are spreaded around here). Usually, if you tell that someone else did something criminal (and that's what SCO is doing), you can do that legally in two ways: either you provide a proof, or you clearly mark it as satire or something like that, so that people understand that it is not meant seriously. Why can't someone sue SCO on consumer protection laws in the states? There are, you can get millions for being burned by a surprisingly hot coffee from McDonalds (ah, I expected coffee at McDonalds to be as stale and lukewarm as their fries are ;-). And why does nobody, since SCO now obviously breaks the GPL, sue them on breaking contract law (the GPL), go in, and shut down all their Linux boxes?
SCO's new offensive Posted Aug 1, 2003 16:39 UTC (Fri) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>Yes they are, but that's entirely SCO's transgression, not the US court systems.<<What about the SEC, DOJ, FTC, and Attorney General? When a company tells you that you owe them money, when you don't really: that is a lie, and it's fraud. When the company threatens to sue you over rights that the company only pretends to have: that is extortion and barratry. When the company pumps it's stock price by proclaiming information that is not true, that is stock manipulation. The USA legal system is clearly failing in this matter.
|
|||||||||||