Slashdot Mirror
SCO's claims Against Daimler-Chrysler Thrown Out
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."
For a free car. It was all they really wanted anyway.
I was waiting for this to start. Meritless lawsuits have taken the SCOmbags way further than they ever should have gotten.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
Why'd it take so long?
Sigs cause cancer.
And there was Much Rejoycing, Now lets all go out and buy a hemi.
Have the SCO made any money from all the legal actions they have taken? How do they still have the money to do all this?
Boxing Equipment Reviews
Check out SCOX. Down 7.2% for the day already.
Well this isn't surprising. But whats the status of SCO's other lawsuits, such as the one with IBM? Who else are they suing? I noticed AutoZone was on the list...anyone else?
would would be interesting to see is if this will drastically effect what happens now with their other lawsuits...
I hope to see a lot of the other judges reading the brief and throwing out the other cases too... Goodbye SCO.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
New yearly lows. Heck of a business plan
SCO thrown out of a Daimler-Chrysler? I see a faulty-door/locks-suit in the near future.
But SCO tried to file a TRO against the Circuit Court of Michigan. It appears the court uses Linux Servers, to handle all of the court dosument distribution. SCO claimed that a TRO was in order because the issuance of the Dismissal would result in irreperable harm. The Judge promptly dismissed the TRO in 2 minutes. The remaining 6 minutes were taken up with everybody in the courtroom ROTFLTAO.
Time for SCO to deploy that famous Iraqi spokeperson.
We have destroyed the Chrysler infidels and their heads now adorn pikes along all interstates leading into Utah.
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
IBM, Autozone, and Daimler-Chrysler. SCO's future was shaky, but they claimed with victory in the three cases mentioned, they would be rock solid.
And lo, the FUD'ed tripod stood firm against the gales of disbelieving laughter, and failed FUD attacks.
First, AutoZone gets an indefinite stay. (uh oh.. SCO's only got two legs left, it's wobbly, a gust of wind will blow it over)..
And now the judge rips out every avenue of attack in the Daimler-Chrysler case. The judge also made it pretty much impossible for SCO to extort^W license their technology to all their old customers who now use Linux..
There's an image for you. SCO's tripod only has one leg left. There's a technical term for that.
BROKEN.
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
They'd have to come up with something good to get this back. But in the end, SCO's 2nd biggest mistake was fucking with the auto industry. They have great lawyers and know how to use them. They are not going to be intimidated by some 2 bit operation like SCO. (and yes, I do even mean SCO in it's heyday). To mess with the auto industry you have to be right, have ALL your ducks in a row, and be very, very lucky.
The following is the eyewitness account report #1 by eggplant37 from the groklaw article but without the stupid commentary.
SCO v DC was 18th of 22 cases on the motion callsheet for the morning. At 0841, the clerk called the SCO v DC attorneys up for a brief discussion, during which I was able to overhear the clerk tell them that he would "like to get [them] in and out."
At 0850, the clerk came over to the SCO side of the bench and spoke briefly with them, telling them "five minutes", I think stating the amount of time that each side would be granted for arguments. DC's attorneys came over and confirmed with the SCO attorneys what the clerk had to say.
SCO v DC was called at 0942. Barry Rosenbaum arguing for SCO and James Feeny arguing for Daimler, and motions were heard to admit Heise and Steven Prout?? pro hac vice for SCO, and also to admit Mark Masuchak from Massachussetts pro hac vice for Daimler, which the Judge granted.
Mr. Rosenbaum argued Daimler's summary dispo motion, noting from the outset that this was a more technical case, dealing with software and licensing agreements, and that he would frame the case briefly, in about 30 seconds. Chrysler says that the case is about whether or not section 2.05 of the SA requires a certification of compliance with detailed enumeration of extraneous facts outside the agreeement, or whether it simply requires a brief certification that licensee has complied with the terms of the license agreement.
Mr. Rosenbaum then went on to recite the language of Section 2.05. He stated that the letter requesting the certification from SCO went quite far outside the unambiguous language in section 2.05 when it asked to enumerate information regarding DC's use of Linux. Daimler didn't file the certification until after SCO filed it's lawsuit, which on its face appeared to be about the contract provisions being breached due to DC not giving SCO their compliance certification in a timely fashion.
Mr. Rosenbaum then went on to recite paragraphs 2 & 3 of DC's response letter, stating that there were no cpu's running SCO's software, that not providing a list of cpu's that weren't in existence and hadn't been used in more than 7 years was more than sufficient to comply with the language of 2.05. Since the language of 2.05 is unambiguous, there is sufficient grounds to grant summary judgement on all assertions in SCO's complaint.
Mr. Rosenbaum finished by stating that the original letter didn't request a list of CPU's running SCO's software. Since there were no CPU's running SCO's products, DC felt it was immaterial as to whether or not they responded within 30 days.
At 0951, Mark Heise then argued the SCO side of the case. He felt that DC's SA gave them full access to the source code and that DC had been given the right to use, modify and create derivatives for their own internal use, and that the SA required that they keep the software confidential, that it should not be exported outside the US -- which in this case seems to be a concern since Chrysler's recent merger with Daimler Benz of Germany.
Heise went on to argue the point that DC's answer to the request for certification was not timely nor was it adequate in that SCO has fears that the source code still lives on disk on some computer somewhere at DC and they are entitled to know where it's stored. He also stated that DC is not alleviated from the terms of the SA once they have decided to take the CD's or tapes or whatever of the source code and toss them in a closet somewhere, and that they needed full certification that the software had been held in confidence by DC.
He went on to recite the terms of section 6.02 of the SA, stating that Chrysler, upon ceasing use of the software, was bound to either destroy all copies or return the software and to notify SCO that they did same. Again, he expressed his concern that in DC's use of the Linux software they were worried that they may b
Speak truth to power.
The judge set up a trap for poor old SCO by not ruling on the issue of not complying within 30 days. By dismissing all the other charges, she essentially cut off any meaningful avenues in discovery that SCO would have likely pursued. This is not going to be a fishing expedition for SCO.
OTOH, the 30 day compliance issue actually keeps open several key discovery paths that DCC might want to take. For instance, why wasn't DCC contacted after the letter was sent and before the lawsuit was filed? DCC could easy state who the hell is SCO? What happended to AT&T/USL? When did SCO get the rights? Hey, okay, we knew about that Novell deal, but SCO?
Additionally, why wasn't DCC contacted prior to the lawsuit when a simple phone call would be have cleared things up (I know that SCO addresses this issue in their complaint)? The judge could point out that SCO is wasting court resources by filing lawsuits without making any attempt to resolve the dispute outside of the courts, which in itself sends a message about launching surprise lawsuits.
See SCO.
See SCO Tank
Tank, SCO tank!
SCO lawyers: The code was stolen from us
...
...
...
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers: Sir please look at exhibit A. It clearly shows...
SCO lawyers: Fsck you!
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers: Your honor the code is not...
SCO lawyers: STFU. You stole our code.
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers: Excuse me but...
SCO lawyers: I saw you steal it.
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers:
SCO lawyers: I have a video tape of it, but my dog ate it.
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers:
SCO lawyers: Show me the money. Show me the money!!!
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers:
SCO lawyers: (In LOTR voice) Your code is Mine!
In America, Daimler-Chrysler is pronounced "Daym-ler Cry-sler".
In Germany, however, the Chrysler is silent.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
I wish this case was handled by someone like Judge Judy who would entertain all of us with her insulting tirade about how SCO has wasted everyone's time and money and how they should be ashamed of themselves.
August 4th, SCO faces a IBM motion for summary judgement that IBM's contributions to Linux are "non-infringing".
If the judge grants that (and it looks 50/50).. it's game, set and match.
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
License for 1 processor server Linux from SCO:$699
License for desktop Linux from SCO: $199
License for embedded Linux from SCO: $35
Judgement that will make this ridiculous house of cards begin imploding: Priceless
There are some things that money can't buy.
Even Microsoft's money.
You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. - George W. Bush
As evidenced by the fact that they have stolen BSD code and BSD is dying
(it's funny...laugh)
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
But in the end, SCO's 2nd biggest mistake was fucking with the auto industry. They have great lawyers and know how to use them.......
As opposed to the incompetent, understaffed legal team at IBM?
(/chuckles inwardly)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Well, he did say their *2nd* biggest mistake...
:)
I'd say fucking with IBM, the annual #1 patent receiver (among other legally-interesting habits) probably knows a thing or two about getting and using great lawyers as well
Taking on Linux via legal tomfoolery is a mistake, but not the biggest one (lots of companies shirk their GPL responsibilities but most come to see reason, for example).
Fucking with the deepest-pocketed, and one of the most veteran, companies in the computer industry, was (IMHO) their biggest mistake.
Maybe they'll sue Ford next, claiming they invented the production line automobile...
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
And take a look at their stock price. My guess it the precipitous drop starts at about the time the judge walked out of the room.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
RH or Novell could step up to the plate with a transition plan for SCO shops about to be orphaned - something like "Are you tired of your software vendor spending more time in court than addressing your issues? It's time to switch. Call for our free migration plan."
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The annoying thing is how mainstream press translates this into - "Linux allegedly violating Unix copyrights" sensationalistic reporting. I bet they are generating more hits that way. What you would hope for is that press gets its facts straight and cut down on "OMG -- you HAVE TO read this!!!" type articles.
... well, to give an equivalent example, if an author of a book included some infringing content, it's like holding every person that read the book liable. Eben Moglen's shot this down, it's been raked through the coals on Slashdot and Groklaw ... but because SCO does a better job of managing the press than the "Linux community, as a whole", nasty disinformation about open source is rapidly spreading around the world and seeping into end users' heads.
As I pointed out yesterday in another SCO discussion:
The mainstream press is buying into SCO's claims just (AFAICT) based on the weight of how often they repeat them and the fact that they have an easy contact point, whereas there is no general "Linux" contact person.
Take a look at one of CNN.com's front page articles from yesterday. They sport lovely quotes like the following:
"The communal aspects of open source can lead to thorny legal questions, particularly when a company claims its proprietary code has seeped into a project. Because developers typically don't offer warranties, end users could be held liable for infringements."
Wow. It's like saying that all code under the GPL is held to a legal standard that's as harsh as
Sad. And probably not fixable.
May we never see th
IBM beat the US government in an anti-trust trial. The US government who has a virtually unlimited budget for lawyers and investigators. Why a 20 man operation decided to try to sue them and hoped to be successful, I'll never know.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
What would you do if you had a contract to provide a bushell of corn to your neighbor at most once a year. Then a guy that lives a mile down the road sends you a letter saying he bought the contract from your neighbor and that you have to get him a bushell of apples and wants you to certify that you are not growing peaches. How would you respond if you were growing peaches? Would you go ahead and send him a bushell of oranges assuming that his claim to have taken over the contract is valid and that is what he is entitled to?
I think this should have been thrown out as well. They didn't even request what they were entitled to. I don't think ignoring a request for something they aren't entitled to is out of line. At the very least, SCOX should have made a good faith effort to contact them again. All they did was send a letter in December and then file suit in March. Come on, not even a second letter, a phone call, or a fax to see why they haven't responded yet? Who does business like that?
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.