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

drop their claim?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they make claims and drop them like that? No consequences??

There are corps that weren't choosing linux or delaying programs because of this .. there were real losses. It's just wrong that you can make risk free arbitrary claims and accusations as scare and/or FUD to try to advance your agenda .. without worry of consequences.

Re:drop their claim?

[Maestro4k]

• How can they make claims and drop them like that? No consequences??

  There are corps that weren't choosing linux or delaying programs because of this .. there were real losses. It's just wrong that you can make risk free arbitrary claims and accusations as scare and/or FUD to try to advance your agenda .. without worry of consequences.

Actually there can be consquences, and there still may be. DaimlerChrysler can turn around and sue SCO for the corporate equivalent of defamation of character, etc. Filing a lawsuit without merit is always risky because you can be counter-sued. Given SCO's actions in the past I doubt they'll sensably drop this and will probably force DC to counter-sue them to get rid of the bad (and false) press SCO is causing them.

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.

Re:Lets not post every legal filing

[Progman3K]

>The first thing any lawyer does in almost any case is file for dismissal on some obscure precedent.

Not having used SCO Unix for seven years isn't really an obscure point, is it?

Yay

[mkro]

Now, I don't know much about "The Market", but I know what this curve means. Hah.

Re:Lets not post every legal filing

[wookyhoo]

Oh c'mon, it is news, and for those of us who have a big stake in our beloved Operating System, it's always nice to see further holes being smashed into SCO's ridiculous claims.

And this one in particular... to have SCO get rid of their patent claims... I'm waiting on a new letter to congress rescinding their previous outrageous unconstitutional hand-waving. I'm not going to hold my breath though ;)

Text version of DaimlerChrysler's response

[pumpknhd]

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

New SCOX low for the year today

[Animats]

SCOX hit a new low for 2004 today.

That big bump in March seems to have been SCO's announced stock buyback. So they blew a big chunk of their remaining cash, and the stock went back down anyway.

It doesn't get much worse than this:

• Product sales are zilch.
• Intellectual property sales are zilch.
• Their VCs want their money back.
• They're in litigation with four different Fortune 1000 companies. And not doing well.
• Their CEO is widely viewed as an annoying loudmouth.
• The stock is in a screaming dive.
• They're widely hated.

The only upside is that there are no criminal charges or securities-fraud litigation. Yet. That may come, if insiders enriched themselves during the stock runup.

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.

"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?

News just in:

[stienman]

Previously we reported that SCO was scraping the bottom of the barrel. We must now print a retraction:

It appears as though SCO is in fact not scraping the bottom of the barrel...any longer. They have broken through the bottom and are working themselves into a barrel sized pit. The barrel was located near an outhouse, and so now you can see where they are coming up with all this...stuff.

-Adam

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.