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."
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.
For a free car.
Actually, it's a $699 lease.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
Ask any you shall receive! Click here.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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.
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); }