Message 01521 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01509 Message: 4/11 L2 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Impaired - is it SCO? preliminary thoughts.


I am not too sure about this. 

On Sunday 26 October 2003 15:27, Felix Stalder wrote:
Until the SCO shows the code it claims infringement on,
the claim is factually baseless

SCO say they own the System V (is that the one) UNIX that they go from Novell. 
Much of the anti SCo stuff is based upon a confusion of legal terms and ideas 
(it is anti FUD and as such not much more helpful than FUD) but the details 
will all come out in the evidence. But at this stage they dont have to allege 
much more than that. Discovery which is ongoing now will tell us more. 

But there is more behind this as you suggest . How much and for what ends are 
becoming murkier. Why is Msoft putting money in.

I also think that given the right court (ie right for them) they will be able 
to be the David fighting the IBM Goliath. This will all go down well in anti 
competitive circles. Other things that worry me are the claims that OS is 
anti competition. This could all be picked up by the "right" judge(s). I 
don't think OS will find many friends in the Rhenquist Court - I could think 
of two maybe but they will be a minority based upon the way he court 

I am not convinced that old rules have much to do with law nowadays. What is 
important (and partly what I was trying to get too in my UF paper which I am 
rewriting) is that the logic of capital is maintained. Nothing more. So I can 
see an anti OS ruling as a possibility. No matter how ludicrous we see the 
the claim(s) by SCO.

But having said all that maybe what my little note makes clear to me now is 
that the rhetoric of the OSI PP is not based in LAW but in a hackers idea of 
what the law should be. In fact their references to what they seem to think 
law is is much more about peer (to peer) ethics than law.

This fits in nicely with what i am trying to develop - ways to reimagine law 
in this context.



"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false, 
which would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which 
is a virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that 
certainly exists or happened."
Bishop Otto to Baudolino


Thread: oxenT01509 Message: 4/11 L2 [In index]
Message 01521 [Homepage] [Navigation]