SCO Volleys to Red Hat

ZeroVerteX noted that News.com is saying "The SCO Group fired back against Linux leader Red Hat on Monday, filing a motion to dismiss the Linux company's suit against SCO. In a motion filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, SCO argues that Red Hat has no grounds to sue SCO, as SCO's actions against the open-source Linux operating system have not specifically targeted Red Hat." So it's ok to threaten a community, but not ok for a member of that same community to stand up?

Comments

For all this 'talk' of community

[Anonymous Coward]

Why havn't any of the 'Linux contributors' - aka the people who have code in the kernel stepped up and sued SCO over defimation?

SCO has, in effect, called the 'team' that developed the Linux kernel thieves.

Why hasn't any of the 'team' stepped up to the plate and sued?

Does this sound familliar?

[tommten]

First, the CSOF contains literally dozens of paragraphs relying exclusively upon indisputably inadmissible material -- hearsay statements taken from books, magazine articles, letters and purported testimony of third parties who are not witnesses in this action
[cut]

Second, Caldera's CSOF contains many misstatements. Many of Caldera's assertions simply are not supported by the cited references. In other instances, Caldera selectively quotes from exhibits, whose full text plainly gives a different meaning than ascribed by Caldera. In alleging certain events, Caldera omits known related facts that convey an entirely different understanding.

[cut]

Finally, although Caldera attempts to rewrite 15 years of computer history, it oddly never mentions that it was not even a bystander to these events. In a 1996 transaction that closed on the same day that Caldera filed this lawsuit, Caldera paid less than $400,0006 for DR DOS and the right to pursue claims against Microsoft that Caldera now says are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This explains why the CSOF is not based on personal knowledge, and is not limited to admissible evidence.

taken from the following page:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/caldera/ 05-05re sponse.asp

First amendment

[watzinaneihm]

In its responding motion, SCO says its actions are protected by, among other rights, First Amendment protections of free speech. "Any governmental interest served under the Lanham Act (one of the foundations of U.S. intellectual property law) is heavily outweighed by fundamental governmental interests in protecting copyright interests, ensuring full and free access to courts, providing litigation immunity, promoting judicial economy and fairness in litigation, and safeguarding freedom of speech and the press," according to SCO's motion
Another company claiming the rights that an individual is entitled to. I say that since you can't jail a company or kill it, a company should not have the rights of an individual.
I think the old Nike case has not been settled yet. So SCO is in the wrong. IIRC, AFAIK and IANAL. But I know I hate this.

Re:First amendment

[I8TheWorm]

An interesting article that discusses the misrepresentation that companies have the same rights that people do under the Constitution.

SCO city to city tour

[DavidNWelton]

Apparently they will also be doing a 'city to city tour' showcasing their fabulous technology:


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030915/lam101_1.html

Needless to say, a great opportunity to organize something with your local LUG to show up and politely make people aware that this is not a good company to be doing business with.

The tour supposedly visits:

-- October 7th, Toronto
-- October 8th, Newark
-- October 9th, Boston
-- October 14th, Minneapolis
-- October 15th, Chicago
-- October 16th, St. Louis
-- October 21st, Vancouver
-- October 22nd, Irvine
-- October 23rd, Dallas
-- October 28th, Atlanta
-- October 29th, Orlando

Re:Mmm..

[watzinaneihm]

I think SCO started out with a case against IBM and when they realised that IBM will not bend over, they switched tracks and got into a stock scam. The claim that Darl made was purely for publicity, I think.
Now their words have come back to bite them. Either they can sue IBM and keep their mouth shut or they can do a publicity stunt. Both together is a dangerous idea. The outcome I hope is that they lose their suit against IBM, AND also get punished for their dumping scheme.

Not targetting Redhat...

[StormReaver]

SCO sent 1500 letters to large Linux-using companies intimating legal action if those companies did not pay SCO's extortion demands. If any of those companies are using Redhat Linux, then it seems to me that Redhat has been pulled into standing by SCO's interference with Redhat's business relationship with those companies.

GandhiCon

[FTL]

1. First we ignored SCO.
2. Then we laughed at SCO.
3. Then we fought SCO.
4. ...

Remind me what step four is?

Re:GandhiCon

[BlackBolt]

First we ignored Communism... yadda yadda, now it's DEAD. Reality doesn't always obey the cliches, but I know you're just being funny here.

Gandhi's point was that when you rise up against the minority British ruling elite (in this case, SCO and Microsoft), you will win your freedom if you are

* on the side of truth, ethics, and god ("righteous");

and

* are a mass of a hundred million oppressed Indian citizens ("a sleeping giant").

SCO is neither. In this case, unlike Gandhi's, SCO is greatly in the minority, they're in the wrong ethically, they're based on lies and deception, they're paid puppets of Microsoft waging a misinformation campaign, and the only thing oppressing them is their weak technology and bad attitudes. SCO is dead, and has been for some time. The voodoo king Gates resurrected them to do one last evil before they abscond with the shareholder's money. Don't let it be you. If they lose these lawsuits, AND THEY WILL, they will disappear off the face of the earth forever, leaving Evil Overlord Bill Gates smiling and with artificially clean hands.

And eventually, the Free Software Community will win. It will not get derailed, and it will keep getting better until there will be no reason for anyone to buy Microsoft products anymore for any purpose. Gandhi's on OUR side, not SCO's.

SCO also filed their 10Q with the SEC yesterday...

[Pembers]

...a copy is here.

Interesting points:

• Revenue is down on last year for almost every part of the business, except SCOsource, to which they attribute their first two quarters of profitable operation.
• They have cut back on R&D, but also on sales and marketing.
• They admit to having no clue about how much revenue they'll have in future:

• While our SCOsource initiative has already resulted in revenue of $15,530,000 during the last two quarters and we continue negotiations with other industry participants that we believe may lead to additional SCOsource license agreements, we are currently unable to predict the level or timing of future revenue from this source, if any.

• They make no specific mention of their plan to exto^H^H^H^Hobtain money from anyone who uses Linux. Does this come under SCOsource? Do they not think it'll make enough money to make a difference to the balance sheet? Or is it just that they realise it's not a good idea to admit to the government that they're running a protection racket?

I'm still waiting for the invoice for my single-CPU Linux box...

The first amendment the last time I checked

[voss]

...was to protect against government censorship.

It does not protect you if you make statements designed to damage someones elses business. SCO clearly has stated linux has pirated code in it.

Redhat's primary business is selling Linux products, whether Redhat was a primary target of that statement is irrelevant, it was an intended target. SCO has clearly intended through its statments and actions to target linux users and potential users who include Redhat customers and those who might become redhat customers. These statements were and are potentially misleading and deceptive.

This may be causing actual financial damage to redhat. Courts do not want to impose prior restraint, but if Redhat can establish they are losing customers because of false and misleading statements by SCO then courts can and do act.

All of these issues are for a jury to decide , so I dont think SCOs dismissal action will succeed

Speculation on SCO Psychology

[Badgerman]

Looking over the latest, which appears to be the usual SCO Linguistic Acrobatics ("We can say anything we want, it's free speech . . . for the corporation!"), I was wondering about the mentality inside SCO. Far inside, since they seem to be in their own world.

I think expecting logic, decency, concern for the rule of law, etc. from SCO is doomed to fail. Of course, we pretty much knew that.

Looking at their behaviors, its purely marketing behaviors. There's not a single connection to reality (except hopes to get $$$ by getting bought, stock manipulation, etc.). It's a marketing campaign, period, and like any campaign of its kind it'll morph, change, alter, play to whomever they can play with, and so-on.

On the other hand, I don't think the SCOites truly realize what they're doing in their little world. They're annoying a huge amount of people and making themselves legal targets. I think they only see this great new ploy that's sure to work - it's marketing, and marketing is always to gullible schlubs anyway, right?

That is perpahs their greatest personal weakness. They're running a marketing campaign in a legal arena. They're assuming people will roll over in the face of their brilliance and threats. They don't realize they're in a different arena.

Re:The community should realize ...

[digitalunity]

Darl McBride has got to be the most flamboyant retarded CEO ever. I don't mean that funny-ha-ha either. He really is very deluded.

On a side note, anyone who does business related to Linux can sue SCO, and probably win. I'm surprised a gag order hasn't been ordered. Usually, when a lawsuit is filed, both parties are very hush-hush because if they lose, any statements made before the judgement regarding the outcome can become a liability. On that note, SCO has racked up a hell of a lot of liability. Red Hat is very much within their right as SCO is interfering with the business operations of any company that relies on Linux. If(when?) SCO loses their lawsuit against IBM, every press release regarding the copyright violations of SysV code in Linux will become libelous, and the company will sink like a concrete shoed mobster, straight to the bottom. SCO's activity during the last six months may also land Darl in jail for mail fraud(Linux license sale offers or requests by mail). Darl should be careful what he says. Everyone in the Linux community was a little miffed at first because it appeared that IBM wasn't vocally supporting the community when in reality, they were in cautious mode.

Win or lose, right or wrong, I just don't care. Even if SCO wins(doubtful, SCO's actions are like a fireant biting a gorilla :), I know the Linux community will replace as needed and carry on. Life will go on. I just wish SCO, and more specifically Darl McBride, would STFU until the lawsuits are settled. I certainly can't be the only person sick to death of hearing about SCO every fucking day.

Re:SCO also filed their 10Q with the SEC yesterday

[heritage727]

The actual 10Q is here, and this is the really interesting thing in it:

During the three months ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") accounted for approximately 25 percent of total revenue and Sun Microsystems, Inc. ('Sun") accounted for approximately 12 percent of total revenue. During the nine months ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft accounted for approximately 16 percent of total revenue and Sun accounted for approximately 12 percent, of total revenue. There were no outstanding receivables from these two customers as of July 31, 2003. During the three and nine months ended July 31, 2002, the Company did not have any customers that accounted for more than 10 percent of total revenue.

So 37% of SCO's income came from Microsoft and Sun last quarter. I think we can all draw our own conclusions, formulate our own expressions of outrage, etc.

Re:Nothing to See Here, Folks, Move Along...

[judmarc]

The basic point is this: SCO filing a motion to dismiss, particularly in a declaratory judgment action, was to be expected, and it won't be news if the motion fails, since the vast majority do fail. (See my reply in the "Consequences" thread.)

BTW: Back when I lived in the litigation world (9-10 yrs ago), filing a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule 11 or a state equivalent in response to a Motion to Dismiss would have been considered an act of Significant Nastiness (which is saying something when you're talking about lawyers) not entered into lightly, and unlikely to succeed. Have standards changed that much since then? Have you seen sanctions imposed under Rule 11 involving a Motion to Dismiss?