[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- To: <dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
- From: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:22:14 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcNhJoAK0kIiHXx3RW+z1Ugyq+2Z7QAkH7FA
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
My guess is that Michael Wilson does not think this latest
line of pursuit is likely to turn out well for SCO . . .
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Bickford [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:07 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
> 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
> "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. 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