[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- From: Will Bickford <wbic16(at)xedoloh.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:06:44 -0500
- In-reply-to: <3F38FD9F.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
I think some really good points have been made so far. I also agree that
SCO is probably in it for the money and not the code. For instance, SCO's
VP recently unloaded all of his shares...along with several other top
"Vice President Michael Wilson sold his entire stake of 12,000 shares
between July 14 and July
18." (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08122003/business/83193.asp and
All I can say is: thank goodness we haven't passed a law to "entitle"
copyright holders to a return on their investment. The day that happens
I'm moving to Mars.
>"SCO has invested hundreds of millions in the development of UNIX and is
>therefore entitled to a reasonable return on its investment. SCO believes
>that major portions of the 2.4 and later versions of the Linux kernel are
>unauthorised derivative works of SCO UNIX IP," it said.
>This is a root issue in the copyright/patent/secret arena. The belief that
>one is *entitled* to be paid for their efforts seems to fuel most of these
>So, are they entitled? Is that what "incent" was supposed to mean?
Do Many Things ... Well