DaimlerChrysler/SCO Case Winds Down

kuwan writes "It was previously reported that SCO moved for and was denied a stay in their case agains DaimlerChrysler. (Remember that all of SCO's claims against DaimlerChrysler were thrown out except for the issue of whether or not DaimlerChrysler made its certification in a timely manner.) The opposition and reply memos for that motion are now available and apparently SCO's motion was so weak that DaimlerChrysler is asking SCO to pay the cost of preparing their opposition memo. A nice summary of the latest maneuvers is available at scofacts.org."

Comments

Re:Fall of SCO

[multipart]

IBM has no interest in putting UNIX under the GPL. They still have Dynix and AIX, remember? Just because they hopped onto the Linux boat doesn't mean they've abandoned their proprierty software base.

Out smarted more than out gunned

[jav1231]

I think DC could have probably played this out to the end just as easily as IBM seems to be able to. DC was smart in that they just didn't have any of SCO's products running in production, as I understand it. It was almost the equivilent of the BSA auditing you for unlicensed M$ products and finding out you're a Linux shop. Oh, and all M$ products sitting on a shelf are in their original boxes and amount to old copies of WFW and MS-DOS 3.2.

I wonder...

[THESuperShawn]

When DirecTV did a similar (but more aggressive) blanket (and mostly claim-less) lawsuit against supposed "pirates", asking (demanding?)for a "settlement" to avoid legal action, it only took one "win" for the little guys to basically cease DirecTV's actions.

I am not a lawyer (but I know a few good jokes about them), but would a "win" against SCO basically kill off their entire case? If DC "wins" (or the case is dismissed), does that mean SCO's claims of licensing fees are over? And if that happens, can the few who actually paid SCO "licensing" fees get a refund?

Nice variety of sources

[sphealey]

Kudos to the author for using a variety of source sites. I count Grokkaw, SCOfacts, and ip-wars at a minimum. This is an excellent diversity of sources and points to a healthy community of discussion.

sPh

Please attack the arguement, not the man

[walterbyrd]

You said:

'Petrovsky's "analysis" is weak and off-base, as usual.'

Okay, please be specific about where and how the arguement is "off base" and "weak." I don't care who considers Pertrovsky a troll. I want specific facts.

Thank you for your reply.

For someone...

[mrscott]

As an American that did NOT vote for GW Bush and as an American that does NOT like the direction our country is headed, particularly with respect to what we're doing around the world, I have to say that I don't like your comment. I think it would have been fine if you hadn't included that part about "And *YET* the moment you bring this up, some USian will come up and pretend that they care." Guess what? Some of us do. Just slightly under 1/2 of us do care, according to the results of a national poll we had a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, the so-called "moral majority" got out the vote.

It's too bad that people can get up on their soapbox like the parent post, but can't do so under their own names.

Re:Fall of SCO

[HiThere]

But it probably *IS* already BSD licensed. (And most of it is also already GPL licensed.)

So far there's no evidence of any more bones than a jellyfish.