Slashdot Mirror
SUSE Requests Arbitration with SCO
rm69990 writes "In response to SCO's amended complaint against Novell alleging copyright infringement, Novell subsidiary SUSE has requested from the International Chamber of Commerce that SCO be barred from asserting copyright over SUSE Linux due to the UnitedLinux agreement between Caldera, SUSE, Connectiva and Turbolinux. This agreement requires that SCO arbitrate with SUSE instead of filing claims, removes the copyright from any work SCO produced while in UnitedLinux, gives SUSE sublicensing rights to SCO's copyrights, and constitutes an SCO commitment that any code released under an OSS license in UnitedLinux remain Open Source. Novell has filed a motion to stay SCO's claims against Novell until the outcome of this arbitration. So now it looks like Linux users are protected both through the APA between Novell and SCO, but the UnitedLinux agreement as well."
cool SCO logo that used to grace these stories? How you people expect me to find 'em without that nifty logo?
Is it fascism yet?
From TFA:Methinks this gives the Novell lawyers a bit too much credit...after all, all they're doing is patiently assertiing that the sky is in fact blue and that water is, and has always been, wet.
The real geniuses here are the SCO lawyers, for keeping this ridiculous dog & pony show going for as long as they have, although I admit that the admiration I experience witnessing their work is generously laced with nausea and trepidation. When SCO's house of cards finally falls, it will be with a deafening crash amid roars of appreciation from the OSS crowd, but in the meantime, hats off to the talented lawyers that have managed to keep it standing this long. They deserve respect, grudging though it my be.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Why does SCO even bother to continue this charade? They didn't have anything to stand on when they started it and now it is getting worse by the day. I also can't see the reason why the judge in this case after seeing, hearing and reading all of the counter claims, etc... hasn't thrown this out and awarded victory to IBM/Novell - SuSE.
RFA or am I spending too much time there?
"Novell has filed a motion to stay SCO's claims against Novell until the outcome of this arbitration. So now it looks like Linux users are protected both through the APA between Novell and SCO, but the UnitedLinux agreement as well."
No, it looks like Linux users are protected through both the APA and UnitedLinix depending on the outsome of this motion. You can file motions all you'd like. That doesn't mean they'll be carried out.
Novell has claimed the UNIX copyrights never went to SCOX/Caldera because they didn't go to Santa Cruz that Caldera acquired. And with this they can claim whatever copyrights SCOX *does* have are subject to the terms of the UnitedLinux agreement with SuSE that Novell now owns.
Rock, hard place, SCOX.
I knew that some good would come out of UnitedLinux some day. *dodges flames*
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
McBride! The rootinest tootinest outlaw ever to rustle *nix code!
Disclaimer: Yahoo! is a registered trademark of Yahoo!
Contracts aren't really what make businesses work, it's the relationships.
If you have to fall back to pointing at the contract and saying "but you agreed," it means the business relationship is fuxxored... and not only are you going to have to win a contract lawsuit, you're going to have to reasses the relationship between the companies.
Obviously, SCO is an anomaly, but the effect is the same. Relationships were broken and contracts aren't going to stop the damage, merely mitigate it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Frauds deserve nothing more than jail.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Are we still at the point where SCO won't tell the court what specific lines code has been code have been 'stolen'? I haven't been following this, last time I looked I thought this was pretty much all over because SCO was unable to present any evidence even as to which lines of code were being used without permission.
Time after time after time, etc. I can't believe I'm still reading news about a company that is desperate for attention, any attention, in the media spotlight and does so solely to boost their stock rating. That's it. Any file motioned, it's a marketing ploy rather than having any credibility or legal component for justice, to keep the ol' shareholders happy.
$CO are perhaps *THE* definitive example of how not to run a company and just how much of a Judas an institution can be. Enjoy spending your diminishing pieces of silver, Darl(ings).
I've been hearing about SCO for years... now, when will they finally quit annoying the Linux community? They haven't gotten anywhere so far, so what makes them thing they'll achieve something now?
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price.
Then there's the SEC disclosure requirements -- the fact that SCOX' stock runup happened while the Management sat on a contract that gutted the basis of the whole lawsuit lottery makes them personally liable. Even the SEC might wake up for that one, but the NYAG's office must be smelling blood in the water.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Primary reason is that it's a ploy by Microsoft to discredit open source (Google for "Baystar" to learn more). Even though the case has no merit, they want to plant a bug in the ear of every PHB out there. "Doesn't Linux have some kinda legal trouble?" In that light, they have been successful somewhat.
Secondary reason, it's a stock scam. The longer they keep the company going, the longer they can bilk the shareholders for more cash. It's probably one of the most blatant examples of insider trading ever, but since it's small potatoes it has somehow flown under the radar. Here's hoping that changes soon.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
However, arbitration clauses are, for all practical purposes, automatically upheld by courts. It's not just the law, it's a well-established way to reduce the workload of horribly overworked judges.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The article is about SCO vs Novell, not IBM.
I can't wait to see SCO get handed its head in any case [sic], but these are two separate complaints from SCO.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I thought this was pretty funny from the article. Man, do not mess with Novell. I never worked for lawyers as good as these guys, and it's a plumb pleasin' pleasure to watch them work.
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be particular about who it makes friends with.
First this retarded "nice" article and now we're hunting for SCO stories again?
Man, am I glad I'm anonymous here...
Now all we need is the youtube video, of the 400 pound convict ass raping Darl McBribe, I cant wait
He, is the emphasis in 'reasses' where I think it is?
Tripmaster, we've been missing you on the Mars stories. We miss reading about K'Breel!
Gynormous Profit for Lawyers
Infuriate left and right
I didn't realize you were responding to an AC there for a minute ... I was pretty impressed; you would have taken online schizophrenia to a new level, even for Slashdot.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I mean, the idiotors. The article linked is the wrong one. This is the correct article for the story.
More and more frequently, I'm thinking that slashdot is becoming a mad magazine parody of itself.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Actually this whole situation reminds me of a very different story; this one's British.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Did Clippy touch you in the naughty place? It's okay, you're among friends here.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They haven't gotten anywhere so far, so what makes them thing they'll achieve something now?
When Darl took over as CEO it was estimated that the company would be bankrupt within 7 months. Since then they have received $60 million in PIPE funding. They did have to pay back $13 million to Baystar, but that's still a pretty good payday for making a bunch of claims that so far haven't been substantiated.
I'd like to commend /. for changing SUSE's logo... about time.
As to the article:
WooHaaa! What a mess...
If you have to fall back to pointing at the contract and saying "but you agreed," it means the business relationship is fuxxored... and not only are you going to have to win a contract lawsuit, you're going to have to reasses the relationship between the companies.
I think the "business relationship" between Novell and SCO was already kind of screwed when SCO switched their business focus from software development to legislation; started wildly slandering Linux and Novell in the popular press; sent out threatening-sounding letters to all the fortune 500 companies presenting the argument that one of Novell's chief products (linux) was illegal; and sued Novell on multiple counts because Novell publicly stated they owned something (UNIX) they really do appear to own.
I mean, after all of that, Novell trying to hold SCO to a contract doesn't seem like such a big deal.
Besides this, it isn't like there's much of a business relationship to salvage. The contracts were originally signed between a company named SUSE and a company named Caldera, as part of a business venture called UnitedLinux. SUSE got bought by Novell, Caldera changed its name to SCO, and UnitedLinux failed miserably and was shelved. There is no relationship left. The contracts, however, still hold.
This has nothing to do with business relationships. This is just about, SCO accused and sued Novell for copyright infringement while bound by a contract indemnifying Novell of such a thing. Now they have to face the consequences.
I think I'd rather have someone with a sense of right and wrong, and a brain. Heshe can pick up the technical stuff on the job.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
PJ, with a spot-on comment (my bold):
If you were given a choice between having a GPL-related case heard in Europe in a fast-track arbitration based on clear contracts or let it drag out for year after painful year in Utah, what would you choose? Anyway, someone on Novell's team at some point noticed that the UnitedLinux agreements, which Caldera signed, require such arbitration of certain types of claims, likely even designating the jurisdiction, and once SCO filed its 2nd Amended Complaint alleging that distribution of SUSE Linux was copyright infringement, it opened up the door to this request for arbitration in France.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
"...Furthermore, since software wants to be completely free and unfettered, it should not be subject to the legal process. Any disputes concerning software licensed under this agreeement shall be decided by a CodeWars competition. Best 2 of 3. And it must be a GPL'd implementation of CodeWars..."
It'll be cool to watch Farooq and Bradshaw kick SCO's butts!
9th June 2003 What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL.
SCO's case is dead in the water and Darl is possibly facing criminal charges of false claims to the copyright office and SEC.
The "new" contract revelation doesn't actually change the details of the suit any. What it does change is the venue. As a result of the "new" contract clauses being brought into play, a small part of the entire SCO-Novell-IBM-Redhat rigamarole, specifically an old contract between Caldera and SUSE, now gets kicked entirely out of the court system and dumped into arbitration. This is important because the rules of arbitration and the rules of a court of law are quite different. Specifically, arbitration is speedy, and hard to delay. Considering the complexity of this situation, and SCO's determination to delay things as much as possible, speed is very important. Remember that the IBM vs SCO court case is still tied up just with IBM trying to get SCO to specify exactly what exactly it was that SCO thinks IBM stole.
Basically, before Novell played the arbitration card, this contract was still important, but it was waiting in line behind a long, LONG list of other issues, and thus ran the risk of nobody seriously looking at it for years or, if SCO self-destructed before anybody could complete discovery issues, not at all. Now, suddenly, this contract is cutting to the front of the line. And that means that certain issues that might otherwise have been decided in another place or in another way are going to be decided here, now, because of this contract.
Most significantly. From Groklaw:Note that these contracts would have been signed after Caldera had already purchased their UNIX properties.
So, if SUSE gets their way, then-- possibly even before IBM gets the chance to complete summary judgements in their case-- this arbitration will rule that SCO has by contract forfeited their right to assert intellectual property claims against the Linux kernel, and the nature of the situation could make that rule apply not just to Novell, but to everyone. Courts can consider arbitration rulings to be binding. So this absolutely can have effect on the IBM case.
And if SCO's long-standing claims against Linux are short-circuited by a legally binding declaration that SCO had forfeited the right to bring claims against the Linux kernel by contracts signed before the allegations even started, that is definitely, as the top level post puts it, a "knew or should have known" kind of situation.
Excellent work indeed... kudos.
Seth, where are you? Its been so long since you've blasted the non-believers. Surely you still think that SCO will win?
You've seized the gist of the matter. It's not that Novell's lawyers are playing "nice"; I suspect that they're as hard-nosed as any other lawyer representing a client. The difference between the half-assed tactical antics of the "bottom feeding scumbags" and masterful strategy of the Novell legal team is night and day.
If PJ can ever rein in here over the top partisan P.O.V., I'd love for her to interview all the participants and then write the definitive history. As I don't think she'll ever lose that P.O.V., maybe Bob Mims would be a better candidate to write such a history.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
What in the world does this have to do with the International Chamber of Commerce? What authority would they have to bar SCO from doing anything?
Depends; did the "smart" hacker get caught flagrantly violating federal law? Perhaps doing something mindbogglingly stupid, like trying to social engineer his way into the FBI's systems? Then I'll take the nice one, because the "smart" one is nowhere near as smart as he thinks, and probably not as smart as he claims. Personally, when I need to dig through dirt, I find a shovel is more effective than a worm, and additionally lets you keep the crap at arms length.
Wretched analogy aside, I'd prefer a lawyer who routinely wins without having to resort to slimy tactics, just like I'd prefer a security expert who doesn't rely on security by obscurity; the tactic is usually still available as a last resort, but relying on it too often makes for sloppy work habits.//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Maybe some day people like you will learn what makes up a good Linux distribution. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Go home and keep playing with your Gameboy!
Uh, let me guess:
1. You're one of those elitists who think "command line or bust"
2. You have no concept of user friendliness
3. You don't grasp the fact that the computer is just a tool used to solve problems, and not a religion
4. As far as distributions go, SuSE is one of the best for out-of-the-box, install, and get right to work experience (I'd say Ubuntu is neck-to-neck with SuSE on that though)
Oh, and nice use of the AC feature. Trolling is not why the AC feature is kept here, you know that don't you?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
She's making that comment in reference to Novell using their counterclaims to bait SCO into something that would then trigger the arbitrarian clause in the UnitedLinux contract.
By forcing arbitration, this ensures that the suit will be settled, one way or another, in six months. Period. No discovery period, no trial, no judge, no legal delays. Come October, this issue is settled.
That prevents SCO from dragging it out any further with Novell, and it was a great move.
Shortly before the lawsuit was filed, scox's market cap was under $6M, now it's over $80. And the share price has been soaring. Up over 8% yesterday, and up over 5% the day before.
If scox had not filed the lawsuit, then msft would have had no reason to arrange scox's funding.
The lawsuit is not meant to be won, it's an end in itself. The lawsuit isn't costing scox anything - just the opposite.
I'm wondering when the first hightech/IT-companies will leave the USA because they don't want to risk to fight years in court to get a filing without any evidence dismissed. How long is this SCOX vs. IBM/Novell/Linux/rest of the world going? Can a legal system that allows a circus like this really allow a competive economy? *ranting* and *complaining*
Like it or not, SCO is clearly on the side of people lie, cheat, and steal for a living. That makes them and everyone who supports them no better than a thug who shoots a store clerk in a robbery.
I don't know about you, but I want no part of them. They are the bane of existence.
and constitutes an SCO commitment
"An SCO"? Have I been wrong all this time in not reading SCO as three letters ("ess-see-oh") and instead as the monosyllabic "skoh"?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?