Red Hat Cornering SCO in Delaware

LordNite writes "There is a great article over at Groklaw on the latest motion in the RedHat's Delaware suit. RedHat has filed for the start of discovery. Looking at the list of documents RH is requesting it looks like SCO will finally have to come clean. Naturally SCO is trying to stall. It looks like the beginning of the end of this whole mess." The faster this can get into court and be over, the better.

Comments

Linux Lottery?

[taviso]

45. All documents concerning a Linux Lottery or the phrase the "Linux Lottery'.

Thats a new one on me, anyone have any clue where this phrase comes from or what it means..why are RH interested in it?

Re:Linux Lottery?

[taviso]

Ahh, Found the answer in a court transcript, here.

In sum, SCO's campaign is designed both to slow the growth of
LINUX, and to reverse its failing fortunes by convincing LINUX users
that they need to pay SCO a license fee to use the lower-cost LINUX
operating system. As SCO's own representatives have proclaimed, if SCO
is successful at this effort, it can add "billions" of dollars in
undeserved revenues to its declining bottom line. Additionally, SCO's
campaign is designed to further what, upon information and belief, has
been referred to as the "LINUX Lottery" -- the ability to reap personal
profit by carefully timed purchases of SCO stock.

SCO does'nt seem to be in a hurry

[gokulpod]

The article mentions that SCO is trying to stall as much as possible. Probably the executives at Santa Clara have'nt sold off all their shares yet. Once that is done, you can be sure to see the cases flying off the shelves.

Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall?

[tehanu]

I am not a lawyer so maybe some people with more experience can tell me - is it usually obvious to a judge (it may be obvious to us in the case of SCO, but that's an entirely different matter) if someone is trying to stall for time, how do judges usually look upon this sort of behaviour (do they shrug their shoulders or get pissed off?) and if they do get annoyed what can they do to the stalling party?

Re:Can the judge tell if SCO is trying to stall?

[Entrope]

The court and representation for each side talk and negotiate deadlines for particular stages of the trial. I imagine that there are common standards for each stage. The judge and Red Hat have interests in seeing Red Hat's case executed in a timely manner, so it would be somewhat difficult for SCO to extend the deadlines greatly.

It is possible to file motions or amended actions later to delay or reset the clock. If the judge believes they have merit, it will go through[1]. If a party to a lawsuit submits many such motions and they are largely frivolous or unwarranted, it may count as vexatious litigation. If a judge considers something vexatious litigation, he or she will generally sanction the offending party. Sanctions can many forms[2].

IANAL, etc.

[1]- For example, SCO recently got a delay in its trial versus IBM so that it could perform due diligence and research in their counter-defense.
[2]- Monetary fines are common, but others are possible. The US prosecutors in the Zacarias Moussaoui were barred from seeking the death penalty or introducing broad classes of evidence when the government refused to comply with a court order to give him direct access to certain terrorist suspect-detainees.

SCO execs cash in on suit spotlight

[Solokron]

You got that right.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5057033.html

Re:Red Hat

[micaiah]

"Why should SuSE do the work for Red Hat when Red Hat's twice as big and much more dependant on the American market (also afaik =)" Because Suse would be defending Linux as a whole e.g. the kernel, which is under attack. It has nothing to do with Red Hat's distro.

Could this massively implode on SCO?

[swb]

Is there a chance that this could massively implode on SCO?

I'd wager there must have been some "UNIX" code in Linux at one time, albeit not intentionally and perhaps only small chunks for SCO to have made any claim at all.

But let's presume that RH's discovery finds the code was relatively small, inserted accidentally or under false pretenses, and not part of the current development of Linux.

Could SCO then be shown to be grossly misrepresenting their claims and mooting any licensing claims they made and perhaps open SCO's executives to claims of fraud, stock maniplation, or at least highly vulnerable to civil action from companies who could claim their misrepresentation had a chilling effect on their business?

If someone can get the man behind the curtain exposed, this could all come crashing down around the SCO guys..

Re:Red Hat

[MadMoses]

SUSE has already successfully filed a suit against SCO Germany a long time ago, with the result that SCO Germany is not allowed to say that Linux includes code that infringes on SCO's copyrights.

Here's Suse's press release (german).

Re:Protecting trade secrets

[schon]

Once they are discovered, they are no longer entitled to trade secret protection, meaning they cannot sue the releasing party if they were released illegally.

The thing is - anything that's in the Linux code base by definition is not a secret.

Nobody's telling SCO "show all of your code" - they're saying "which lines of the Linux source do you believe is infringing?"

The only reason not to answer that question is that there is no infringing code.

Groklaw Article

[Mostly a lurker]

I found a backdoor to this (sorry about the formatting):

SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery

Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 04:25 AM EDT

There has been quite a lot of activity in the Red Hat case.

SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the other products for which they have requested source code.

They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to "identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact with any Linux users about supposed liability. They want to know how they compared the UNIX and Linux code to determine infringement. They want to know if they've done any comparisons of the two and what the results were. They want to know all the stock or industry analysts SCO has met with or talked to and what was said. In short, it's like the kind of fantasy a guy might have about a bully getting his at last, because they asked them everything we wanted somebody to finally ask SCO and make them answer.

SCO responded to Red Hat's discovery requests by filing a new motion, and it has told the judge, in a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss, it would like a delay until after the first motion, the Motion to Dismiss, is ruled on. They surely don't seem in any hurry to get this matter resolved. They argue that because they are simultaneously providing discovery to IBM (of course IBM says they aren't seeing anything, as I recall), they can't possibly do both, and anyway, if they win their motion, it'd be moot. In short, they would very much like not to have to do this, presumably so that if they win the Motion to Dismiss they can continue to refuse to give any particulars about their case. If the judge doesn't grant their Motion to Dismiss, they'd like the judge to give them 30 days to provide all the discovery items.

Both of Red Hat's discovery documents are attached to this SCO Motion to Stay Discovery, and they begin with definitions, like what is "intellectual property" within the context of the document, and instructions, like how to identify the writers of documents, etc.. The first document begins on page 7 of the pdf, but we find out what Red Hat is asking for on page 12, where the list begins.

Red Hat in its "First Request for the Production of Documents and Things" asks SCO to produce the following documents:

1. All documents concerning the subject matter of the Complaint.
2. All documents concerning any customer, or potential customer, of Red Hat.
3. All communications between SCO and Red Hat or any employee of Red Hat.
4. All communications between SCO and any user or potential user of a Linux product, including Red Hat LINUX product, concerning any rights to Linux, or UNIX th

Re:Red Hat

[gmkeegan]

... but I have a hard time finding SuSE in North America, that's a nieche market for them.

I think you mean Nietzche market. (That which does not kill -9 me, makes me stronger?)