|
| Authored by: chris on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
Page two, third bullet.
SCO's public statements about Linux are untrue
...Code used in the LINUX operating system "is not the property of SCO, was not
copied from LINUX, and was developed independently..."
Shouldn't it be
not copied from UNIX? Am I just reading it wrong?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Typo? - Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Typo? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 05:04 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: hombresecreto on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
Hooray for Red Hat! They need a good spanking.
hombresecreto[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
oooOOOooo. Nice! Clear, concise and complete. Not a bit of wiggle room.
Is it possible for SCO to ask for a delay in the Judge's decision on this based
on adding a new lawyer or some other nonsense?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
A common theme in RedHat's Memorandum is stating that the existance of the IBM
suit is not a cause for granting a dismissal, ostensibly because RedHat is not a
party in the IBM suit.
However, we know that SCO has asked for a extension to IBM's amended
counterclaims because of a desire to add in extra parties to the suit. Could one
of these parties be RedHat, in an attempt to invalidate RedHat's memorandum ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 04:50 PM EDT |
I just read SCO plans to add more/other lawyers and needs time to work them in.
Is this a hint that the big guns they hired are getting ready to leave the
sinking ship?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kbwojo on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the difference between TSG documents
and the IBM/Redhat documents. It looks like IBM and Redhat tend to do research
and add legal finding facts to the documents and come across as well thought
out; whereas TSG documents seem to be filled with off the cuff innuendo and seem
to have no real legal facts (or at least facts the make sense to anyone outside
of TSG) to back up their statements. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
| It occurs to me on reading this that HP could have sued for a similar
declaratory judgement instead of distributing indemnification-flavor
kool-aid.
Red Hat's arguments that the threat to customers is a threat to Red
Hat should also apply to HP and its Linux offerings.
Is it too late for HP to
do this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
I think Chris makes a good point. I wouldn't be surprised to see SCO add
Redhat in order to sandbag all litigation until 2005, thus giving their officers
time to dump stock.
My impression is someone -- most likely Darl who has scored easy settlement cash
in the past -- got confused by the Unix source history and *thought* they could
shake down IBM (bad, bad, bad idea). They know they are sunk so they only thing
to do is grab a cane, a top hat, and dance their way towards the exit.
I'm pretty sure SCO will collapse in under six months. Watch for Sun buy the
remains too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tamarian on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Just finished reading Red Hat's response.
They clearly made the point that SCO explicitly named Red Hat and it's
customers in various threats, etc.
The major point they scored is this, SCO itself admitted (in the request to
dismiss!) that Red Hat maybe next on the list if it succedes against IBM. And,
here's the main point, resolving the IBM vs. SCO suit, has nothing to do with
Red Hat, as Red Hat has no contractual relationship with SCO, therefore, it is
unfair to dismiss this case, since it will not be resolved by any outcome of IBM
vs. SCO, and the controversy will not end then. Therefore, there is no escape
from granting Red Hat a chance to prove it's case to get a declaratory
judgement against SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
In previous comments I stated that I felt that SCO's Rule 12 Motion would fail
because the SCO lawyers were attempting
to argue facts in a Motion to Dismiss. A first year law student knows better
than to try this. I ANAL but about twenty years ago I argued a claim as
plaintiff pro se through to concluding arguments in a United States District
Court.
In all humility I must confess that the Court Reporter, who had more than twenty
five years experience in the District Court, stated to me that I was better
prepared than fifty percent of the attorneys that appeared in his proceedings.
From the public statements I have seen coming from SCO's counsel there is an
absolutely amateurish "first year" quality about their
representations. SCO's Motion to Dismiss was worthy of charges of incompetence.
In contrast the present Red Hat Memorandum has the look and feel of legal
elegence.
On a serious note, I do not understand the poor quality of representation being
provided by the Boies law firm.
---
THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Clay on Tuesday, September 30 2003 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
oooh nice.
it so good to see them fighting on two fronts now. I wonder how much cha ching
this will be in the end with the very high profile law house of Boies? m$ should
just write checks directly to them, it would just save time.
maybe we should start a pool...
my first guess is that they will spend more than redhat or even ibm. now that
would be justice. will it be close to the millions from m$ though? *maybe* the
way things are looking it could get ugly for them. ever seen a bully get into a
fight they can't win? usually they have to eat alot of crow before they will
say uncle.
Clay
---
---------------------------
newObjectivity, Inc. supports the destruction
of all software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 2003 @ 01:53 AM EDT |
"SCO has faired poorly in financial terms"
... it's really sad when people judge corporations only in terms of financial
success.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Harry Clayton on Wednesday, October 01 2003 @ 05:35 AM EDT |
Does anyone have a pdf of Red Hat's complaint?
I can't find it anywhere.
---
Linux: There is no infringing code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ikh on Wednesday, October 01 2003 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
I am, of course, pro Opensource and anti SCO so please someone tell me what
is
wrong with the following argument.
SCO claim that Linux is a SysV
derivative because IBM copied code that requires
a SysV license into the Linux
kernel. SCO v IBM will establish the truth or
falsehood of this
claim.
RedHat is not a party to SCO v IBM nor a SysV licensee. RedHat
is not the
copyright holder of the code that makes Linux a SysV
derivative
All of RedHat's claims are predicated on whether Linux is a
derrivative of
SysV therefore, at the very least RedHat v SCO must await the
outcome of
SCO v IBM and can only proceed if IBM wins.
Thoughts
anyone. And please don't shoot the messenger.
/ikh
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
