Re: semi-OT: does SPI have cause of action against SCO?
(Sorry if threading breaks; I'm replying to the web archve)
Steve Langasek wrote:
>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.
I don't think there's much point.
Firstly, Red Hat is a business which makes money from selling Linux and
related services. SCO's lies are damaging Red Hat's business, and they
can therefore claim monetary damages based on their loss. It seems
difficult to put a monetary value on the reputation of a non-profit
organisation like SPI.
Secondly, SCO named Red Hat in public discussions of the case. They may
be regretting that. In English libel law, you can't libel a group. If I
claim that Fulham FC were all on drugs during their last match, none of the
players can claim libel against me, because there are too many of them,
and the harm is spread too thinly. (The precedent actually does involve
a football team). If I name one of them, he could have a case. (Differences
between English and US law, and between personal and corporate libel, might
make all this irrelevant.)
IANAL. TINLA.
--
Andrew
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
Reply to: