Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 12 Aug 2003 at 18:06, Will Bickford wrote:

Date sent:      	Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:06:44 -0500
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
From:           	Will Bickford <wbic16@xedoloh.com>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@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 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 
> http://worldwatch.linuxgazette.com/article.php?sid=101).
> 
> 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:
> 
> >From:
> >http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6873464%5E15317%5E%5Enbv%5E1530
> >6,00.html
> >
> >"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
> >arguments.
> >
> >So, are they entitled? Is that what "incent" was supposed to mean?
> >
> >MickeyM
> 
> --Will
> Do Many Things ... Well
> http://www.xedoloh.com/ 
> 
>