Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?

[Glendon Gross <gross(at)xinetd.ath.cx>]

As a UNIX and linux enthusiast, I have been following this case with some
interest.

For those of you who are interested, I have posted a page with javascript
buttons pointing to some interesting articles on the subject at the
following URL:  http://xinetd.com/index-sco.html

Regards,

Glendon Gross


On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Joshua Stratton wrote:

> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Joshua Stratton <cpt@gryphon.auspice.net>
> Reply-To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, mickey wrote:
>
> > "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?
>
> No, they're not entitled. Many investments can turn sour. The mere input
> of capital or labor doesn't intrinsically deserve a reward; if it did,
> maybe the dot com I worked for would not have gone under. There is some
> discussion of the rejection of the sweat of the brow theory in Feist.
>
> Copyrigt provides an opportunity -- nothing more. Just because Gigli cost
> in the neighborhood of $50 million doesn't mean that we all have to go sit
> through it, wishing we were somewhere else*, just so that it turns a
> profit.
>
> Now, if there is infringement, this interferes with the opportunity to
> obtain a reward in the marketplace, AND tends to divert what seems to be a
> likely reward. (after all, if there is piracy, that indicates that someone
> might be interested enough to buy it for real)
>
> But I do agree that copyrights et al are being wrongly considered as
> strong property rights when that's manifestly inappropriate.
>
> *For example, the grave.
>
>