[plug] Copy of my response to SCO ANZ, FYI

[bob]

On Wednesday 21 January 2004 11:59, Luke Dudney wrote:
> Australian Firm Asks SCO To Detail Evidence
> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/01/21/0220251.shtml?tid=123&tid=130&tid=18
>5&tid=187&tid=190&tid=88&tid=99

One of the postings points out... 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s202.html

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968- SECT 202
Groundless threats of legal proceedings

(1)
    Where a person, by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, 
threatens a person with an action or proceeding in respect of an 
infringement of copyright, then, whether the person making the threats is 
or is not the owner of the copyright or an exclusive licensee, a person 
aggrieved may bring an action against the first-mentioned person and may 
obtain a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable, and 
an injunction against the continuance of the threats, and may recover such 
damages (if any) as he or she has sustained, unless the first-mentioned 
person satisfies the court that the acts in respect of which the action or 
proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an 
infringement of copyright.


Could be a useful factoid :). SCO is arguably not the owner of the copyright 
or an exclusive licensee. 

-- 
Where's the man could ease a heart
Like a satin gown?
		-- Dorothy Parker, "The Satin Dress"