That's the SCO game plan. Put out enough FUD and see if you can get some quick money.
Steve Stearns <sterno@bigbrother.net> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
08/12/2003 08:32 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
cc:
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 10:04, Joshua Stratton wrote:
> 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)
One thing that intrigues me about this case is SCO's hesitation to point
out the specific violations. If the Linux source code was violating
copyright and, by extension, was damaging the market for SCO software,
then it would be in SCO's best interest to get that offending code
removed ASAP, wouldn't it? What SCO isn't saying, but is clearly
implied by their behavior, is that they supposedly hijacked code is
easily replaceable, and irrelevant to value of Linux over SCO.
When I write a book, my unique phrasings create the value in the book.
When I write music, my unique choice of chords and rhythms creates the
value in the song. With software, the code, in itself, doesn't provide
unique value. Given an API with defined inputs and outputs, the exact
implementation of the code can be done any of a number of ways.
Certainly the implementation can vary in quality, but ultimately the
uniqueness of the implementation is mostly irrelevant.
Assuming that Linux does contain offending code, it can be removed with
only a modest effort and the courts need not been involved as long as
the Linux contributors are willing to make those removals. In contrast,
you couldn't copy a part of a Shakespeare sonnet and alter it in any way
so as to maintain the value of the original while not fully replicating
the original.