On CNET: Keep your software up-to-date
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 16 of 44:
Next »
« Previous
IP != Physical Property
Patent law does not require that you remove the infringing work. Unfortunately, that means your analogy just went out the window.

The situation is more akin to selling a book that contains plagerism. The End User is not liable for copyright infringement. There is no legal requirement for the infringer to track down readers of books that contains plagerised information. You are legally required to stop the infringement and to not continue to infringe.

So, when Red Hat says that they will replace any infringing code at their customers' premises, it is actually going above and beyond the legal requirement. That was, and is, my point.
Posted by: dscherf   Posted on: 01/20/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story No further replies to this post will be accepted.

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

looking up for SCO  cvos | 01/20/04
The only people who will see any of that money...  rbethell | 01/20/04
Why would anyone deal with this?  Mike Cox | 01/20/04
ROTFLMAO  Patrick Jones | 01/20/04
I doff the fedora to you Master Cox  Squawkbox | 01/20/04
Brilliant  NemesisNL | 01/20/04
Man, that was a perfect riff. Author! Author!  dicktaurus@... | 01/20/04
Errors in the last paragraphs  mlybbert | 01/20/04
How big of them!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/20/04
"Replace" != "Remove"  dscherf | 01/20/04
Well, um,, DUH!!!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/20/04
It apparently wasn't obvious to you  dscherf | 01/20/04
Obvious to anyone with a brain.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/20/04
Not legally required  dscherf | 01/20/04
Let me use little words for you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/20/04
IP != Physical Property  dscherf | 01/20/04
No  NemesisNL | 01/20/04
one born every minute...  Chris Moller | 01/20/04
What a cute little rant.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/20/04
What a cute little rant.  Loverock Davidson | 01/20/04
glass house * (stones + throwing) == lots of broken glass (nt)  ryusen | 01/20/04
Ranting vs. needling.  Chris Moller | 01/20/04
Hard to tell with all the noise.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/20/04
So stop posting yours  NemesisNL | 01/20/04
Okay, Brilliant, what would you do?  IT_User | 01/20/04
I would ignore it rather than look stupid.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/20/04
Copyright = null  IT_User | 01/20/04
Exactly  NemesisNL | 01/20/04
SCO has no problem hiding UC Berkeley (BSD) Copyright notices  B.O.F.H. | 01/20/04
SCO Donations  MuffinMan_z | 01/20/04
Copyrighted code not in dispute  dscherf | 01/20/04
If this is a contract case ...  George Jay | 01/20/04
THe suit is about "methods and concepts".  No_Ax_to_Grind | 01/20/04
That seems to be the latest take...  IT_User | 01/20/04
No it's not  NemesisNL | 01/20/04
I believe you are correct, although...  IT_User | 01/20/04
PR versus statements to the Court  dscherf | 01/20/04
to late to be reluctant  NemesisNL | 01/20/04
HAHAHAHAHAH  poogranite | 01/20/04
I want whatever you're putting in your muffins! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  dicktaurus@... | 01/20/04
MuffinMan = Bill Gates (or a dwarf clone of him)  cyberian_z | 01/25/04
Private Conversation between Stallman and Torvalds  MuffinMan_z | 01/20/04
sco code  JWatson77 | 01/20/04
Real Issue of IBM VS SCO  john public | 01/21/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement