Not entirely on-topic for this list, but I'd rather bounce this idea off our kibitzers of law before looking to waste the time of SPIs legal counsel. Even if the suggestion doesn't withstand a cost/benefit analysis, I'm at least curious to know what options are available under these circumstances. Red Hat has a filed suit against SCO consisting of seven counts. Two of these counts are requests for declaratory judgement against SCO; five are claims that SCOs actions have caused harm to Red Hat's business in violation of various state and federal laws, and that Red Hat is therefore entitled to damages. It seems likely to me that SPI has similar cause to request declaratory judgement; although Debian GNU/Linux has not been explicitly named as an infringing product, SCO has claimed that the Linux kernel is infringing -- and since Debian uses the Linux kernel, the FUD is spread. However, there's not much sense in filing a separate suit for this reason alone; one declaratory judgement against them ought to be enough. On the other hand, even though SPI is not a for-profit vendor and doesn't have customers, SCO's libelous claims certainly damage SPI's reputation the same as they do the reputation of other Linux vendors. Is this a strong enough argument that SPI should consider suing SCO for damages? Could the damages exacted be enough to justify the expenditure? There would certainly be a measure of poetic justice if the non-profit underdog were to fill its coffers by suing the slimy corporation that's managed to overinflate its stock price through strategic use of frivolous lawsuits. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgphT1X7ByG0c.pgp
Description: PGP signature