Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?

[John Galt <galt(at)inconnu.isu.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Glendon Gross wrote:

>
>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

Another resource is on IRC freenode has set up a #sco-legal channel for
discussion thereof.

>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.
>>
>>
>

- -- 
         * You are not expected to understand this.
- --comment from Unix system 6 source, credited to Lions and Johnson
Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQE/QToI+ZSKG3nWr3ARAjQzAKCQdTdFqgq25bh62oEFSRV20JQeQACfWD98
sdvb6i9pjYt3Jls4KFiJ0ao=
=VfWG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----