RE: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

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
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Will Bickford [mailto:wbic16@xedoloh.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 4:07 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 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 
> 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.  The day 
> that happens 
> I'm moving to Mars.
> 
> Original Message:
> 
> >From:
> >http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6873464%5E153
17%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.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/