DaimlerChrysler Looks for Dismissal of SCO Suit

Ian Atkins writes "DaimlerChrysler has told SCO where it can stick its lawsuit. In a filing in Michigan, the car company has said not only does it not have to give SCO the information it asked for, but that it hasn't used the software SCO claims rights over - for seven years. It has asked the judge to throw the whole thing out of court. Another bad for SCO and its MS-backed Linux crusade it would seem. Full details on Techworld here." Reader Eggplant62 notes that Groklaw is also covering the story, and noting that SCO has dropped their claim that the GPL is unconstitutional.

Comments

Re:Go Linux

[ChrisBrown1]

No, DCX is saying that they haven't used SCO's OPENSERVER or UNIXWARE in that period of time. That ARE using LINUX.

Text version of DaimlerChrysler's response

[pumpknhd]

Groklaw has posted a text version of DaimlerChrysler's response to SCO's complaint.

why doesn't SCO just die ...

[drizst 'n drat]

SCO's stock has been taking a pounding lately and as of now (1352 EST is under $6.50 a share. If you follow the trend .. they are slowly but surely crashing. Now the question is going to be ... when?

Re:SCO does have some legit claims

[RedK]

And this could be one of them...

Read the daimler filing, this is surely not one of them. This suit is about Daimler/Chrysler failure to comply to the audit letter sent to Unix licenses at the end of 2003. Basically, what they tell SCO is :

We already answered but anyway, you didn't have a right to ask in the first place, and if you did, as per your contract with Novell, they waived your right to an answer. Also, we haven't used your systems in a while, and you have failed to indicated clearly how we're infriging your IP and you didn't try to mitigate or give us a chance to cure. So screw off and come back when you've got something to sue us over.

And mostly, they're right, and you would know this if you followed groklaw's excellent coverage.

Re:drop their claim?

[budgenator]

DC has basicaly said "Your Honor tell them to go away, never come back and have them pay us for our lawyers' fees on the way out; because they have no case, know they have no case, and are just pretending that they do."

"Unclean Hands"

[Embedded Geek]

I read the Groklaw summary and stumbled across the term "Unclean Hands" in the list of defenses that DaimlerChrysler has put forth.

Man, I knew some judges were sticklers about proper decorum in the courtroom, defendants wearing suits, etc. but this is pretty extreme, don't you think?

Re:Dismissed with Prejudice?

[DavidTC]

Dismissed with prejudice means 'You don't have a case, and cannot possibly ever have a case, so you can't even file again about this.'.

Whereas dismissal without prejudice means 'They cannot prove the case, but they may, indeed, have one, once they get their act together and file in the right court or under the correct statue or whatever.'

(Of course, you can appeal either of these.)

Dismissal with prejudice is what judges do to people who sue the government for alien mind control.

Re:SCO does have some legit claims

[red floyd]

So screw off and come back when you've got something to sue us over.

Actually, they filed for dismissal with prejudice, so they actually said something like:

So screw off, and don't bother coming back.