Why would we bother? We'd be in the same court, with the same attorneys, and the same issues to resolve, as SCO/IBM are already. Does the open source community need yet another lawsuit? /Larry Rosen
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mahesh T. Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Mahesh T. Pai > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 3:41 AM > To: License Discuss > Subject: OFF-TOPIC - The SCO suit > > > A bit off topic; but I guess that people on this list > have the interest, resources and the capacity, to > implement what I have in mind, if it can be done at all. > > Please see the following extract from the Indian Copyright Act. > > <begin quote> > > 60. Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings- > Where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, > by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other > person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an > alleged infringement of the copyright, any person aggrieved thereby > may, notwithstanding anything contained 1[in section 34 of the > Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963)] institute a declaratory > suit that the alleged infringement to which the threats related was > not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person > making such threats and may in any such suit- > > (a) Obtain an injunction against the continuance of such > threats; and > > (b) Recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of > such threats. > > Provided that this section shall not apply if the person making > such threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an > action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him. > > <end quote> > > Does not the US law have similar provisions?? > > Could not any of the copyright holders to the Linux Kernel sources (I > understand that there are several, since Linus does not seek > assignment) initiate appropriate proceedings against > SCO's claims against the several Fortune 500 companies?? > > Surely, there is no claim that _every_ file in the kernel > sources is infringing; so far as I can understand the > pleadings. But, the claim for royalties ( or whatever > against the fortune 500 cos) does not restrict the claim > to use of the infringing files. Hence, the last paragraph > (the proviso) has no application. > > There have been enough public statements from SCO's officers > to invite such litigation. I am also aware that the > owner of copyright in majority of the files making up the > kernel sources is at present in the US .... thus making the > job easier ... > > -- > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ > > Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., > 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, > Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, > Kerala, India. > http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3