SCO's Motion to dismiss Red Hat's Complaint Denied
Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the well-isn't-that-special dept.
Soko writes "The scoop is on Groklaw - SCO's motion to dismiss is denied, and further activity in the case is now pending the outcome of the SCO vs. IBM litigation in Utah. If they lose against IBM, will there be anything left for Red Hat to kick around, though?"
seems pretty cool. red hat don't have to pay for as much serious litigation as they would've done in the full on trial and they can sit back and relax while IBM pound away at SCO. and in the event that IBM actually lose, then they're ready and waiting with a second shot.
-- and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
What my non-legal mind takes from this is that SCO now has to hire more lawyers because they've got a real problem on their hand with Red Hat.
As I see it, and I could be wrong, if SCO wins against IBM, then they make Red Hat's case. Even if SCO loses, they've still got some real damages claims to deal with.
Worse, it means they're going to have to put-up or shut-up proving their accusations for the Red Hat case, evidence, which if admitted, could bolster IBM's defense.
SUre, there's still one more thing that Red Hat could get - criminal charges filed against Darl McBride. Barratry, Racketeering, and Extortion.
No, you can't. The standard for such charges are pretty high. First, for barratry, one would have to have solid evidence that Darl/SCO/Canopy acted in bad faith, and were suing for fun. You'd have to have evidence that not only are their claims crap, but THEY KNEW IT. Good luck.
For racketeering and extortion, which I'm assuming you're using to attack their "licensing" behavior, you won't get that either. Reason is because they at least have a reasonable claim on their actions - basically, it's not extortion for them to defend their rights, and until it's damned clear they don't have such rights (like after some court case), you'll lose this one too. Also, what's the "weapon" (ie, the "or else...") behind the extortion claim? A lawsuit? So in that case, you'd have to prove the barratry case before starting the extortion case, and that won't work on it's own.
So I know the/. crowd loves the idea of criminal actions against Darl, including stoning, hanging, or general torture. But it isn't realistic, and I think people should learn the *legal* background of such terms if this barratry argument is to keep going around and around for another couple of years like it has so far.
Re:Dancing? Nah the Limbo
by
$rtbl_this
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It doesn't look quite the same if you take the five day view. SCO were doing pretty badly until last week and then their stock price almost doubled. Maybe it was an April fool gone wrong.
-- "Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
Slashdotters, feel free to examine Panko website
by
0x0d0a
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This sounded kind of interesting, so I googled and quickly found Dr. Panko's website (there aren't many people out there by the name of "Panko").
He's got a number of websites, one of which is here.
He definitely, ah, favors Microsoft.:-) Very unusual for a security guy.
Yeah, it's only 10:10am and SCOX is down 3.8% on the morning, with the ask prices looking abysmally low.
Could be a very long day for SCO.
Hint at the market reaction ....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Just look at the market value of the companies involved:
- IBM : $160 billions
- Novell : $4.6 billions
- Red Hat : $4.2 billions
against:
- SCOx : $156 millions
Rest my case : scox is a sure looser (at least market-wise)!!
Re:Hint at the market reaction ....
by
Dav3K
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You forgot one...
- MS : $400+ billions
scox may be a looser, but this is far from over
Re:Public Opinion on the SCO case
by
m00nun1t
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments. Here's a review of the source code: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/715 52/7795
I'll quote for you since you are on/.: "...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."
"...Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility..."
Re:This sucks !
by
SpaceLifeForm
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Justice delayed is justice denied.
SCO knows this, that's why they keep screwing around just to keep the courts tied up for as long as
possible.
In this case, the real question is 'Why?'.
Why did the judge delay? Was the judge overwhelmed
with BS and confused as result?
And can Redhat appeal the judges ruling to delay?
-- You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Red Hat's suit (unlike SCO's) not about money
by
RunzWithScissors
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The reason that Red Hat sued SCO was because SCO was making, as of yet, unfounded claims to customers that Red Hat was infringing on their IP for UNIX. Red Hat's suit is more about keeping SCO from saying derogatory things about The Hat than getting a hefty settlement from SCO for damages. Besides, what would Red Hat do with $6 bln? Probably buy a kickass RV, no wait, they did that already...
-Runz
Re:It's about time
by
mdfst13
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I can see two things to which your parent could have been referring (neither of which would be quite correct):
1. Novell claims to own the Unix copyright still. SCO does have the right to license Unix code though. It's not stolen.
2. Unix (for lack of a better name; pre-SCO) apparently used some code that Linus Torvalds wrote. (Unix also used some code written by Donald Knuth or someone like that.) Linus isn't a company though.
If neither of those are it, then I don't know to what your parent was referring. While I realize this is slashdot, I too would be interested in references for "code...stolen by SCO from ANOTHER COMPANY" that might be in Linux.
Re:Why it matters
by
big-giant-head
·
· Score: 2, Informative
IBM and Novell have already inked agreements for IBM to sell SUSE and use it as thier OS of choice. Novell has no reason to go after other *nix vendors. They stand to make more money playing fair than behaving like SCO.
First, they distribute Linux under the GPL. Then a while later, they go around telling people they owe $699 to them or they have to stop using Linux. How is that not extortion?
First, because it's not clear, legally, at this point, that the GPL has invalidated their IP that could possibly be in linux. There are a number of reasons for this, which I won't belabor here, if for no other reason than it's been knocked around for over a year now. Yes, yes, we all "know" SCO's claims (whatever they are today) are false, but until this is substantiated, they have every right to suggest that companies license. Anyone sued has an obvious tactic, which is to petition the court to wait until the IBM, Novell, etc. cases are resolved, but it's still not extortion to try to receive payment for something you think is yours. In effect, you're saying that a company must decide for itself whether its claims are bunk or not, and any attempt to reach an out-of-court settlement by a party who "would have" lost is extortion. And that's not going to work.
If you're still not convinced, look at the DirecTV racketeering lawsuit that was thrown out, and there was a great deal more evidence against them than exists against SCO.
Again, just because we don't like SCO doesn't mean they've committed a crime. They may be subject to civil decisions, but that's a different matter.
Re:Dancing? Nah the Limbo
by
avdp
·
· Score: 2, Informative
$8.50 -> $11 is nowhere near doubling.
Re:Install Linux in them.
by
Vindicator9000
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, we'll just put this
linky in, so everyone in the future will get the joke.
Re:Anything left to kick around?
by
SCHecklerX
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It was sarcasm. Here is a better article (which is linked from the third I posted...I should have posted this one instead):
Slashdot Mirror
seems pretty cool.
red hat don't have to pay for as much serious litigation as they would've done in the full on trial and they can sit back and relax while IBM pound away at SCO.
and in the event that IBM actually lose, then they're ready and waiting with a second shot.
and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
What my non-legal mind takes from this is that SCO now has to hire more lawyers because they've got a real problem on their hand with Red Hat.
As I see it, and I could be wrong, if SCO wins against IBM, then they make Red Hat's case. Even if SCO loses, they've still got some real damages claims to deal with.
Worse, it means they're going to have to put-up or shut-up proving their accusations for the Red Hat case, evidence, which if admitted, could bolster IBM's defense.
Either way, SCO has failed to learn from history.
--- have you healed your church website?
No, you can't. The standard for such charges are pretty high. First, for barratry, one would have to have solid evidence that Darl/SCO/Canopy acted in bad faith, and were suing for fun. You'd have to have evidence that not only are their claims crap, but THEY KNEW IT. Good luck.
For racketeering and extortion, which I'm assuming you're using to attack their "licensing" behavior, you won't get that either. Reason is because they at least have a reasonable claim on their actions - basically, it's not extortion for them to defend their rights, and until it's damned clear they don't have such rights (like after some court case), you'll lose this one too. Also, what's the "weapon" (ie, the "or else...") behind the extortion claim? A lawsuit? So in that case, you'd have to prove the barratry case before starting the extortion case, and that won't work on it's own.
So I know the /. crowd loves the idea of criminal actions against Darl, including stoning, hanging, or general torture. But it isn't realistic, and I think people should learn the *legal* background of such terms if this barratry argument is to keep going around and around for another couple of years like it has so far.
It doesn't look quite the same if you take the five day view. SCO were doing pretty badly until last week and then their stock price almost doubled. Maybe it was an April fool gone wrong.
"Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
This sounded kind of interesting, so I googled and quickly found Dr. Panko's website (there aren't many people out there by the name of "Panko").
:-) Very unusual for a security guy.
He's got a number of websites, one of which is here.
He definitely, ah, favors Microsoft.
May we never see th
Yeah, it's only 10:10am and SCOX is down 3.8% on the morning, with the ask prices looking abysmally low.
Could be a very long day for SCO.
Just look at the market value of the companies involved : :
- IBM : $160 billions
- Novell : $4.6 billions
- Red Hat : $4.2 billions
against
- SCOx : $156 millions
Rest my case : scox is a sure looser (at least market-wise)!!
Maybe you should read up more before you make your "bad code" comments. Here's a review of the source code:5 52/7795
/.:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71
I'll quote for you since you are on
"...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into "add one to i" redundancy..."
"...Microsoft does not steal open-source code. Their older code is flaky, their modern code excellent. Their programmers are skilled and enthusiastic. Problems are generally due to a trade-off of current quality against vast hardware, software and backward compatibility..."
Read reviews of shopping cart software
SCO knows this, that's why they keep screwing around just to keep the courts tied up for as long as possible.
In this case, the real question is 'Why?'. Why did the judge delay? Was the judge overwhelmed with BS and confused as result? And can Redhat appeal the judges ruling to delay?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The reason that Red Hat sued SCO was because SCO was making, as of yet, unfounded claims to customers that Red Hat was infringing on their IP for UNIX. Red Hat's suit is more about keeping SCO from saying derogatory things about The Hat than getting a hefty settlement from SCO for damages. Besides, what would Red Hat do with $6 bln? Probably buy a kickass RV, no wait, they did that already...
-Runz
I can see two things to which your parent could have been referring (neither of which would be quite correct):
1. Novell claims to own the Unix copyright still. SCO does have the right to license Unix code though. It's not stolen.
2. Unix (for lack of a better name; pre-SCO) apparently used some code that Linus Torvalds wrote. (Unix also used some code written by Donald Knuth or someone like that.) Linus isn't a company though.
If neither of those are it, then I don't know to what your parent was referring. While I realize this is slashdot, I too would be interested in references for "code...stolen by SCO from ANOTHER COMPANY" that might be in Linux.
IBM and Novell have already inked agreements for IBM to sell SUSE and use it as thier OS of choice. Novell has no reason to go after other *nix vendors. They stand to make more money playing fair than behaving like SCO.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
First, because it's not clear, legally, at this point, that the GPL has invalidated their IP that could possibly be in linux. There are a number of reasons for this, which I won't belabor here, if for no other reason than it's been knocked around for over a year now. Yes, yes, we all "know" SCO's claims (whatever they are today) are false, but until this is substantiated, they have every right to suggest that companies license. Anyone sued has an obvious tactic, which is to petition the court to wait until the IBM, Novell, etc. cases are resolved, but it's still not extortion to try to receive payment for something you think is yours. In effect, you're saying that a company must decide for itself whether its claims are bunk or not, and any attempt to reach an out-of-court settlement by a party who "would have" lost is extortion. And that's not going to work.
If you're still not convinced, look at the DirecTV racketeering lawsuit that was thrown out, and there was a great deal more evidence against them than exists against SCO.
Again, just because we don't like SCO doesn't mean they've committed a crime. They may be subject to civil decisions, but that's a different matter.
$8.50 -> $11 is nowhere near doubling.
Well, we'll just put this linky in, so everyone in the future will get the joke.
http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2003-11-26/featur e.html/print.html
::: tap, tap ::: That's the sound of the clue bat. NetWare is owned by Novell and SCO has no claims whatsoever to it.