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."

Comments

Other fun details about these filings

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If/when Novell gets their motion four of SCO's five claims will get booted out of court and off to arbitration-- but all of Novell's counterclaims against SCO get to stay in court
   
2. One of SCO's claims was for "unfair competition". Novell had to file a motion just to ask exactly what law they broke!!! SCO has gone beyond specifying laws broken but not being able to specify exactly what had been stolen, and now into the realm of insisting "well, they did something illegal" without being able to explain exactly what.

Re:Not quite.

[Kilz]

Courts like arbitration. The odds that this motion will fail are in the slim and none category. If you sign a contract with an arbitration clause, bank on going to arbitration. Arbitration was a term of a contract SCO's aleged predisser in interest signed. To get that contract not used agaisnt them they would basicly have to say they are not the predisser in interest. Since all of SCO's lawsuits are based on that fact, it isnt going to happen.
One other thing in that motion is that Novell asked for the money from the Microsoft and Sun deals to be placed in trust. This because the apa contract says that sco isn't supposed to be able to grant Unix licensees without Novells approval. If this happens, good bye SCO.

Re:What phase is this in?

[TubeSteak]

It's in the SCO-needs-to-put-up-or-shut-up stage

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200604050 02552215
IBM says to the Judge

SCO does not provide a complete set of reference points (version, file and line) for any of the 198 Items. Astonishingly, SCO fails specifically to identify a single line of System V, AIX or Dynix, and Linux code for any of the 198 Items. SCO does not identify specific System V, AIX, or Dynix version(s) or file(s) with respect to more than a few of the Items. Even specific versions and files of Linux are omitted with respect to many of the Items.
...
IV. THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY IS TO LIMIT SCO'S CLAIMS.
...
As discussed above, SCO has failed to provide IBM and its experts the most basic information needed for IBM to evaluate SCO's claims and prepare its defense. With respect to the 198 Items at issue, SCO has declined, as a practical matter, to tell IBM what is in dispute.
...
  We believe, respectfully, that SCO's failure to specify the 198 Items amounts to bad faith.

Two reasons

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks this gives the Novell lawyers a bit too much credit...

The real geniuses here are the SCO lawyers, for keeping this ridiculous dog & pony show going for as long as they have...

You don't know much about law, do you? Delaying is as easy as pushing pawns around. What's "plumb pleasin'" for PJ is that in this particular instance, SCO may have pushed up the wrong pawn in their 2nd Amended Complaint, opening themselves up to not fewer than 17 affirmative defenses deftly outlined by Novell's lawyers that they could have avoided had they been a little more on the ball. Hardly geniuses...