[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] SCO and mail fraud (offtopic maybe)
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] SCO and mail fraud (offtopic maybe)
- From: Marcia Wilbur <aicra(at)well.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: <3F410082.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
That's interesting. That seems not only like a legitimate arguemnt, but
after SCO's claims are found worthless in court, any further harrassment
could be contrued as mail fraud as well.
If SCO is found to have known they had no case to begin with, then they
are really in deep.
It's ironic that SCO pursued these licenses to avoid jailtime for the
fraud they were already pulling with IBM and insider trading, saying that
IBM didn't have any rights to use UNIX code and the whole Linux
supposedly has SCO code thing. If they didn't go after the licenses,
those claims would seem unfounded. Going after the licenses seemed to make
whatever else SCO said seem legitimate to the general public.
Now these charges that they are going after companies for with the
license for Linux are going to be considered fraud as well.
The hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Mark
> It has been suggested that SCO may be guilty of mail fraud if it
> invoices companies for a license to use Linux. Is there any substance to
> this theory?
> After all, SCO will be asking for money from people from whom it has no
> contract with, and in addition, while there is a legal dispute with IBM,
> SCO has not made any legal moves to dispute who owns Linux, despite what
> they are saying in press releases. Since asking several hundred firms
> for $700 per server is a lot of money, surely the FBI would be interested...
> If so, would a charge of mail fraud proceed faster than the current IBM
> case and thus quickly remove any FUD as far as Linux is concerned?
> Thankyou for your patience
> Mark Roberts