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...
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.
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.
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..."
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...
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.
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.
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