Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO's claims Against Daimler-Chrysler Thrown Out

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the sucks-to-be-them dept.

Zak3056 writes "According to eyewittness reports published on Groklaw, SCO has been all but thrown out of court in their suit against Daimler-Chrysler. In a hearing that lasted 18 minutes with the judge ruling from the bench, all of SCO's claims, save that DCC failed to file their required certification with 30 days, were dismissed."

5 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Re:One question... by penguinstorm · · Score: 3, Informative

    it's not that easy

    no money = cheap company to buy = new money = new lawsuits

    i doubt the validity, but if legal counsel for some insane organization convinces a CEO that there's merit to the lawsuits, we could see a purchase and resumption.

    --
    Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
  2. Brief status, simplified by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative
    • Red Hat vs. SCO - stayed, at SCO's request, until the copyright issues are resolved in SCO vs IBM.
    • SCO vs. Autozone - stayed, at AutoZone's request, until the copyright issues are resolved in SCO vs IBM.
    • SCO vs. Damlier-Chrysler - SCO lost today
    • SCO vs IBM - summary judgement on copyright issue scheduled for August 4th.
    • SCO vs. the market - down to $4.24 today, a new 52-week low.
  3. Re:Its been quiet for a while.. by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Informative
    But whats the status of SCO's other lawsuits, such as the one with IBM? Who else are they suing?

    Ask any you shall receive! Click here.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  4. Honorable Rae Lee Chabot by __aanonl8035 · · Score: 4, Informative

    A website with more information about the judge in this case, along with a picture. http://www.co.oakland.mi.us/circuit/judges/chabot- rae.html

  5. And here's the bait by craw · · Score: 3, Informative

    This a letter sent from Daimler Chrysler to SCO (Broderick) on April 6, 2004 after the lawsuit was filed. It is part of DCC's April 15 filings with the court.

    Dear Mr. Broderick:

    -----snip-----

    The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") believes that:

    1. SCO "owns" certain rights under the Software Agreement referenced about ("SA") and,
    2. SCO's referenced letter was a proper request for a certified statement under Section 2.05 of the SA.

    SCO is not a party to the SA, and Daimler Chrysler has no knowledge of any assignment of the right of the Licensor under the SA to SCO. According to our records, the SA was assigned from AT&T Information Systems, Inc. to UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. on or about November 1, 1990. Notwithstanding these facts, SCO has filed its suit against Daimler Chrysler. SCO's suit appears to be based on an uninformeed and inaccurate assessment of Daimler Chrysler's conduct. As a result, and without waiving any of its rights under the SA or under applicable law, including without limitation its right to assert that SCO has no rights under the SA, that SCO has no right to seek the certified statement under the SA, and that SCO has intentionally filed a meritless lawsuit for purposes of restraining competition, Daimler Chrysler provides the attached information to SCO.

    ---- attachment ----

    The attachment is a letter sent to USL certifying compliance (i.e., no designated CPU's.

    Your move SCO. Doesn't this letter tell you what DCC's is thinking? That's right, you're screwed.