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.

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?