Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
The SCO Group is amending its federal lawsuit against IBM -- changing its legal tactics in the ongoing public drama over Linux software. But contrary to some reports in the press, the company didn't claim earlier in a letter that the Linux General Public License (GPL) was "unconstitutional." Rather, Darl McBride, the company's CEO and president, claimed that GPL violated the U.S. Constitution, for it undermined intellectual property rights.
Re: SCO Changes Legal Tactics in Federal Court
Posted by: mforbes 2004-05-05 10:17:01 In reply to: Gene J. Koprowski
I just re-read article 1, section 8, so I could make sure I was hearing Mr. McBride's argument correctly.
To quote: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" ... "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
In other words, nothing obligates Congress to mandate that all inventors receive monetary compensation for their work; congress is simply empowered to grant such privileges and rights to inventors as claim them. Inventors are free to do whatever they want with their products.
Mr. McBride's comments seem to indicate that he believes inventors have no choice; that they -must- receive compensation.
To quote: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" ... "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
In other words, nothing obligates Congress to mandate that all inventors receive monetary compensation for their work; congress is simply empowered to grant such privileges and rights to inventors as claim them. Inventors are free to do whatever they want with their products.
Mr. McBride's comments seem to indicate that he believes inventors have no choice; that they -must- receive compensation.
Re: SCO Changes Legal Tactics in Federal Court
Posted by: splatrabbit 2004-05-05 08:41:53 In reply to: Gene J. Koprowski
Using to Constitution to make free things illegal? Pleeease! That sounds like using the Supreme Court to get elected President! (If, by chance, this is what happens... then make the software worth $1. Consideration for $1 is common practice in contract law. Then tell McBride to hit the road).
"unconstitutional" = "violates constitution"
Posted by: coredump11 2004-05-04 07:49:10 In reply to: Gene J. Koprowski
With all due respect, your statement that "[SCO] didn't claim that [the GPL] was "unconstitutional[,]" [but only that it] violated the U.S. Constitution" is silly. It's a distinction without a difference, because to be unconstitutional _means_ to violate the U.S. Constitution.
From dictionary.law.com:
"unconstitutional
adj. referring to a statute, governmental conduct, court decision or private contract [...] which violate one or more provisions of the U.S. Constitution."
From dictionary.law.com:
"unconstitutional
adj. referring to a statute, governmental conduct, court decision or private contract [...] which violate one or more provisions of the U.S. Constitution."
SCOG previously claimed GPL unconstitutional in court filings
Posted by: ThomasFrayne 2004-05-03 12:44:15 In reply to: Gene J. Koprowski
The claim that GPL is unconstitutional was made, but not in a letter. It was in SCOG's court filings: a claim that SCOG has now explicitly dropped.
