[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
On 12 Aug 2003 at 18:06, Will Bickford wrote:
Date sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:06:44 -0500
From: Will Bickford <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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 employees.
> "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.
Or insider traders on securing the profits they so "richly deserve"
> The day that happens
> I'm moving to Mars.
> Original Message:
> >"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