link

Via Dave:

The Acacia case highlights why a growing chorus of corporate and government officials is warning that the US patent system is broken, threatening to stunt technological innovation.

link

I can edit Shimon's notes!

—Josh

I know! I write shitty software!

—Shimon

The Santa Cruz Operation, those crazy litigators with the surprisingly cool name, are just a cornucopia of bullshit! CEO Darl McBride virtually ignores the lawsuit issues in this letter, which is mostly focused on fleshing out an apriori framing of SCO as defenders of the rule of law against nearly terroristic Free software advocates. But if you have a sense of humor there are some great parts:

SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. Constitutional authority to enact patent and copyright laws was granted to Congress by the Founding Fathers under Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution: Congress shall have Power 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….

This is so creative— totally out of left field, zany even! If these guys weren't evil, they would have probably made good writers for the TV show The Family Guy.

Anyway, after rambling about how well legally established copyright is, Mr. McBride jumps to:

Thus, SCO is confident that the legal underpinning of our arguments is sound. We understand that the litigation process is never easy for any party involved. Our stance on this issue has made SCO very unpopular with some. But we believe that we will prevail through the legal system, because our position is consistent with the clear legal authority set down by US Congress, the US Supreme Court and the European Union.

This leap— from general remarks on the law to the merits of a specific case— is so brazenly illogical that anyone with any clue about law or copyright will see this as a pathetic smoke screen. It's like saying that because murdering people is clearly illegal, you can't own a gun. To be the slightest bit swayed by this kind of argument indicates a disturbingly weak understanding of causality and consequences. Which I suppose makes it just adequately convincing, if you're psychotic.