[plug] Fwd: SCO Group

[sscott at iinet.net.au]

The ACCC finally replied to me. 

I dont actually know what the 'complex issues' are, but based on this thinking 
I am going to bill the ACCC for back rent on the building they are in that I 
own. I dont actually have to prove ownership tho, so everything is fine. 

Extending this concept further, I am going to stop in at Durty Nelly's after 
work and tell the barman that I already own the shiraz cab that he is selling, 
and he better grab the bottle and a glass and start pouring before I sue him.

In fact, having thought about it, go and rent 'Elmo in Grouchland' and look at 
the similarities between Darl and Elmo's nemesis.... it's quite startling.




> Dear Mr Scott,
> 
> Thank you for your email of 20 January 2004 to the Australian Competition
> & Consumer Commission (the ACCC) regarding SCO Group. 
> This matter raises a number of complex issues involving the interaction of
> intellectual property rights and the provisions of the Trade Practices Act
> that cover misleading and deceptive conduct. At this stage the matter is
> being evaluated by the ACCC and a decision has not been made as to what,
> if any, further action might be taken.
> You may be contacted at a later date in relation to this issue.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Davin
> ACCC Infocentre
> 1300 302 502
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Simon Scott
> 48 Ackworth Cres
> WarwickPerthWA
> Australia 6024
> 0409113359
> 92469424
> sscott at iinet.net.au <mailto:sscott at iinet.net.au> 
> 
> 20th January 2004
> ACCC's position on SCO 'licensing' of linux IP
> Greetings I am interested in the ACCC's position of the recent press
> release from SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) stating that they are offering
> 'licensing' of supposedly SCO owned IP within the linux kernel. SCO has
> yet to identify the offending sections of code, if any. Many Australian
> businesses are suffering because of the uncertainty this action has
> created. Their claims have not been proven, nor are they likely to be,
> especially within an Australian court. This action seems overtly
> anticompetitive to me. What is the ACCC's thinking on the matter? Are they
> likely to act in any official capacity? Regards 
> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plug.org.au/pipermail/plug/attachments/20040127/bb091cd0/attachment.html>