|
|
| Red Hat News - Lehman Brothers Threatened by SCO |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 11:38 AM EST
|
A faithful Groklaw run-to-the-courthouse volunteer has just returned from the Delaware courthouse. Some time this afternoon we should have the actual papers from Red Hat's filing. Basically, Red Hat is letting the judge know that SCO didn't tell her the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For one thing, Lehman Brothers, a customer of Red Hat, got two threatening letters from SCO, threatening legal action over alleged copyright infringement, and their reply is attached to the motion. Clearly, they let her know, there is an imminent threat from SCO, making this a "judiciable controversy", an element they must prove to avoid dismissal of their action. For one thing, McBride's statements at Harvard that SCO would begin suing end users on February 18, Red Hat points out in its documents, is proof of an imminent threat. He copied down the "Don't Contact Us Again" letter by hand and here is his report.
********************************************************
Just got back from courthouse. I ordered a copy of the docket and
hopefully should get it this afternoon, scan it, send it along. In the
meantime I jotted down a summary of the motion as well as a letter from an
SCO customer to SCO telling them to bug off. I copied that in its
entirety (I hope accurately).
OK, here's my summary.
Red Hat stated that SCO sent a letter to one of Red Hat's customers (Lehman
Brothers Holding) accusing them of infringing copyrights. There were two
letters, the second threatening legal action. The customer advised both
SCO and Red Hat that it is looking to Red Hat for a response. (letter
transcribed below).
Red Hat also said that the "justiciable controversy" was also confirmed by
public statements made by McBride last week (motion filed 2/11) that they
will begin suing end user customers by February 18th. (I assume they
were talking about the Harvard speech.)
Lehman Bros' response to SCO was that it purchased Linux products and
services from Red Hat.
At one point Red Hat referred to this case as an "Emperor without clothes."
Redhat also stated that SCO statements contradict earlier representations
by SCO to this court.
Red Hat requested the court to allow this information to be submitted
in further support of their Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.
Now the Lehman Brothers' letter (from their legal counsel)... hopefully
without any transcribing mistakes:
"SCO's letter of December 19, 2003 to Mr. Richard Fuld and of January 16,
2004 to Mr. Jonathan Beyman (attached) have been forwarded to me to reply.
"The issue you raised concerning use of Linux software have been directed
to our vendor, Red Hat, Inc., for a response. Understandably, they are the
appropriate receipient and are better positioned than we to respond to
your issues and concerns.
"Please direct any further correspondance on the subject to Red Hat. To the
limited extent you must communicate with Lehman Brothers in the future
(admittedly unlikley, given our request herein), please direct any such
communications directly to my attention."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 11:57 AM EST |
| slap right across the face. lovely :-D [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:01 PM EST |
"Redhat also stated that SCO statements contradict earlier representations by
SCO to this court."
Pardon my ignorance, but which representations
are they referring to?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Levitt on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST |
Does the timeframe mean anything here?
I mean, can SCO say, "Yes, we did these things, but only after RedHat filed
the suit"?
Or is it enought for RedHat to show that SCO did it to prove they thought the
threat was real?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST |
| s/unlikley/unlikely [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST |
Sorry for cross-posting - but this will rattle a lot of cages:
Quote
FFII News -- For Immediate Release -- Please Redistribute
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++
The netfilter/iptables core team has reached an out-of-court settlement
on the infringing use of GPL'd code by Allnet GmbH.
As part of the agreement, Allnet will make a major donation to the
FFII.
Their Press Release says:
---------------------
Of interest to editors and journalists covering: Linux, Free Software,
Open
Source, Wireless Networks, Network Security
NETFILTER/IPTABLES PROJECT REACHES OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT ON THE
INFRINGEM=
ENT
OF THEIR COPYRIGHT BY ALLNET GMBH
BERLIN, Germany - Feb. 17, 2004 -- The netfilter/iptables project
(http://www.netfilter.org/) announces out-of-court settlement with
Allnet G=
mbH
(http://www.allnet.de/) on Allnet's infringing use of copyrighted
material.
Allnet was offering two products, a wireless access router and a
load-balan=
cing
DSL router, both including software developed by the netfilter/iptables
project.
However, Allnet did not fulfill the obligations of the GNU General
Public License covering the netfilter/iptables software. Specifically,
Allnet did not make any source code offering or include the GPL license
terms with their products.
Allnet has now agreed to adhere to all clauses of the license and
inform its
customers about their respective rights and obligations of the GPL. It
will
further refrain from offering any new netfilter/iptables based products
without adhering to the GPL.
"We are very happy with the cooperative manner of Allnet in which this
issue
was resolved and an amicable agreement reached",=20
notes Harald Welte, the Chairman of the Netfilter Core Team.
As part of the aggreement, Allnet will make a significant donation to
two
tax-exempt non-for-profit organizations established under german
law:=20
The Free Software Foundation Europe (http://www.fsfeurope.org/), and
the
Foundation of a Free Information Infrastructure (http://www.ffii.org/).
About the netfilter/iptables project
The netfilter/iptables project provides state-of-the-art network
security software for Linux firewalling, packet filter and network
address translation (NAT), distributed as Free Software under the terms
of the GNU General Public License. Being part of the linux operating
system kernel, the software is running on virtually every Linux
installatio=
n.
For more information on the project or the software, visit
http://www.netfilter.org/
About ALLNET GmbH
Allnet GmbH is manufacturer and distributor of networking equipment,
includ= ing switches, routers, NICs and wireless adapters.
--
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance tel.
+49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation
http://swpat.ffii.org/
300,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents
http://noepatents.org/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darthaggie on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST |
| My first thought: oooh, not smart. Second thought: are those THE Lehman
Brothers? yes, apparently so:
Lehman Brothers, an innovator in
global finance, serves the financial needs of corporations, governments and
municipalities, institutional clients, and high-net-worth individuals worldwide.
Founded in 1850, Lehman Brothers maintains leadership positions in equity and
fixed income sales, trading and research, investment banking, private equity,
and private client services. The Firm is headquartered in New York, London, and
Tokyo and operates in a network of offices around the
world.
You can read the rest at http://www.lehman.com/who/history/
. Is it me, or does TSG seem to like to pick on folks who can defend
themsevels? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO...not smart...who'd thunk it? - Authored by: badqat on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:08 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:13 PM EST
- Yes it is ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:19 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:33 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:38 PM EST
- Yes, but... - Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST
- I disagree, at least on the face of it.. - Authored by: Turing_Machine on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: darthaggie on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST
- Money the only point? Maybe for SCO. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 03:23 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 04:39 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: b'trey on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:45 PM EST
- In case you haven't figured it out... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:51 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:48 PM EST
- SCOG: We're losing money on these lawsuits... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 03:22 PM EST
- Who are the Lehman Brothers? - Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 05:07 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: badqat on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:04 PM EST |
...how to pick targets with the ability to crush them financially, no?
Yet another "deep pockets" target.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:15 PM EST |
Thanks to the volunteer who did the work :-)
With SCOX until recently making all those noises about suing a Linux end-user,
this example of Lehman Bros is bad news for SCOX.
This fully legitimizes the defense of end users to say that it is the vendor's
problem. This is all SCOX are going to hear from their selected victims until
SCOX run out of capital. Redhat on the other hand has $100M in the bank at the
moment, I doubt there is any appetite in SCOX for another doomed legal
adventure. Nope, they wanted easy marks, like all bullies. Real revenue
declining fast, little or no SCO Source action now they found the three idiot
companies that would pay, lawyers sucking on the teat day and night....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fjaffe on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:18 PM EST |
The two letters referred to are most likely the standard letters that SCOX sent
out to the 1500 companies. LB certainly fits the profile of one of those
companies.
Hopefully, when we get to see the court filing, we can verify this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST |
Not terribly surprising. RedHat is the largest distributor of Linux products,
you have to figure SCO probably sent a number of letters to RedHat customers
besides this one. In any event, SCO keeps stating they intend to sue end-users
and not really clarifying beyond that, so RedHat has lots of ground to argue to
the court that SCO's threats are immediate and immenent.
I would be surprised though if SCO tested the end-user suit waters with this
particular company. Lots of people received the threatening 2nd letter from SCO.
It all boils down to what SCO thinks a court will do with the public cloud over
copyright ownership and how that applies to SCO's apparent rights (or lack
thereof) to sue anyone over copyright infringement. It could be that it would
take intervention by Novell to dispute SCO's claim against an end user to get
the suit washed but I don't know, IANAL.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Frihet on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:39 PM EST |
I'm lost. SCO clearly does not have clear ownership of the goods they are using
as a basis for their letters (IBM, Red Hat, Novell suits).
Why is this not extortion on its face?
Why is no one filing charges?
---
Frihet
Repeal the Digital Monopoly Conservation Act.
Write your congress folks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 12:59 PM EST |
Clearly, assuming that the hand-copied version of the response is *at all*
accurate, the lawyer for Lehman Bros. is confused. He seems to believe that the
distributor carries the liability for copyright infringement. He must not be as
big an expert on copyright and Consitutional law as Darl.
Funny, you'd expect a big company like Lehman to hire good lawyers.
</sarcasm>
Let me add to the praise and appreciation being heaped upon our intrepid
courier. Thank you!
The Flatlander
---
Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST |
I think Lehmann is a sufficiently well known and affluent target that clueless
Didiots will swallow it whole and add SCO's damages claims to SCO's bottom line
for this year.
Target, $75. Yes! Go long, all you Didiots.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Didiot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:28 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST |
Thanks to the 'courthouse runner' - I wish I were in a position professionally
or geographically to help out in a similar fashion.
I guess I fail to
see the significance of this news (although I am sure it is important if the
lawyers are doing it). If it is public knowledge that SCO has sent
warning/litigation letters to many people, and SCO publically brags about
this, then how exactly does this filing help Red Hat? I would think that the
dozens and dozens of news articles and press releases about the litigation
threats would be enough to suffice.
Is it only significant
because Lehman Brothers has forwarded this letter to RH saying "Not our problem
- take care of this."? If so, then I would hope and expect that more
companies have forwarded similar letters, and this is not the only example that
RH has. If SCO supposedly sent out 1000+ of these (assuming it is the same
warning letter) then statistically speaking RH should have quite a few more
examples of this.
If this is a different letter, then I would
like to know what about it makes it significant.
Hey, if these
documents hit Groklaw at the same time that judge Wells posts her decision, this
could be a very busy Transcribing Day! How do you do it, PJ?
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:06 PM EST |
Judge: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth.
Darl: Yes, your honor. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
everything but the truth.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST |
Being sort of new to this, and not a lawyer, but my wife is a law clerk, meaning
I still have no insight.
It is my understanding that during the last court session between SCO and IBM,
SCO has completely dropped the copyright, and trade secret issues. It is also my
understanding that they are only claiming that work created by Sequent and IBM
are owned by IBM and derivative works according to their interpretation of the
contract.
How does this translate in to a copyright lawsuit against end users.
I'm confused (certainly not the first time)
Leo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST |
Apparently, SCO has sent out these threats to Linux users without knowing who
their vendors are, and they got a Red Hat customer. Is this what SCO means by
Linux lottery?
The best part is that it's another customer who can afford to bleed SCO dry. Go
for it, SCO! Keep suing those rich folks who can afford to fight back.
Monty Python has nothing on these people.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:22 PM EST |
What does it take for a perjury claim to be added to the list of offences?
a) SCO have said in court that they are not a threat to Redhat customers
b) SCO send threatening letter to Redhat customer
To me, that sounds like a slam dunk for a claim of perjury. Will someone please
tell me why the papers and marshalls are not being sent to SCO right now?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Perjury - Authored by: cacruden on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST
- Perjury - Authored by: PM on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST
- Perjury - Authored by: cacruden on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST
- Perjury - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST
- Perjury - Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST
- Perjury - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 08:58 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: ChocoNutDancer on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:33 PM EST |
| Computer World article "AT&T Trips Up SCO"
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government
/legalissues/story/0,10801,90205,00.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST |
Would be nice if all the brokerages, and perhaps, other companies, too, on the
stock exchanges started their own Linux defense funds.
Sure, there'd be more settlement money available, but also a bigger war chest to
fight back.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tomas on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 02:29 PM EST |
| There's an article over at computerworld.com by Frank Hayes that presents the
AT&T $ echo words from 1985 in a short well written
piece.
Obviously Frank understands. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST |
Can someone refresh my memory with what was wrong with Napolean's strategy
again? Or the German's in WWII?
How many legal fronts are open at this
point?
- IBM with the keep Darl talking strategy
- Novell
- RedHat
- Lehman's...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 02:41 PM EST |
In a furtherence of their FUD and stock "shake & bake" scheme,
they chose a company who can tell other financial analysts that SCOX is
worthless! The stock should plummet line a stone, maybe even face a delisting.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 02:50 PM EST |
OR MAYBE, they have shorted their own stock,
or have partners (Canopy) for example, that have
shorted the stock heavily, so that they just
behave stupidly (as they are) and when the
stock becomes worthless, the partners even the
short and make Millions. In this senario, the
goal is to take a dying company, and PUMP and
DUMP.
Time to turn on the SEC.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jaydee on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 03:10 PM EST |
IANAL
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=94763
I found a reference to this case on the Yahoo SCOX message board. According tho
the writer the RIAA threatend to sue Felton (in a letter) the Judge did not
accept that this made his case a Judiciable Controversy, because the RIAA
claimed that they were not really going to sue.
Does anybody know more or have better info about this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST |
| Darn, I wanted to sign up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST |
So, if they didn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to
a judge in court, why can't we count on everyone involved doing hard time with
hard labor for a few decades? People are looking to dismissal of lawsuits. But
where is the felony prosecution, disbarrment, and punitive action against the
corporation?
Seriously, if you blatantly lie to a judge in court, isn't that supposed to be
one of those "may god have mercy on your soul" sort of offenses? The
kind where you actually go to prison? And no country club prison, either...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST |
Nice to see something out of the Red Hat case, FINALLY!
Has anyone checked out the court in Utah to see if Judge Wells has filed a
ruling?
Do we (GROKLAW/Linux community) have a forward observer out there?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST |
My understanding was that SCO sent the ABI letter to UNIX licencees and not
necessarily for Linux licencees. Am I mistaken here?
If I am correct, then SCO's threatening letters are more related to their Linux
licences (which LB probably has). In this instance, there is no way LB can pass
the case over to RH since the case related also to Unix licence as well as
Linux.
Can someone clarify?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 05:10 PM EST |
Darl McBride, speaking to The Boston Globe's reporter Hiawatha Bray:
"I wasn't brought in to have warm fuzzies with Slashdot. I was brought in
to increase shareholder value."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 05:14 PM EST |
This is not my opinion, but can't you already see what SCO is going to argue:
<DarlMode>
I predict that SCO will oppose Red Hat's motion
They will say:
1. Red Hat has no product, Linux is free
2. Red Hat has not indemnified Lehman Brothers, so therefore SCO threatening
Lehman does not create or even provide proof of any controversy.
Therefore these papers are irrelevant, Red Hat's motion should be denied, and
their entire suit dismissed
</DarlMode>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 05:25 PM EST |
UF 'bout SCO
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040207
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040206
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040205[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST |
Here is a good article:
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux04/SCO-v-Novell_Linux-01-Story03.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 06:26 PM EST |
| Netcraft is reporting an outage.
http://up
time.netcraft.com/perf/graph?site=www.thescogroup.com
Suppose somebody
finally told 'em there was still Linux 2.4 kernel source on their
servers? ---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly an
aircraft...they were the first to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL and whatever) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: odysseus on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 06:44 PM EST |
Do we know if this is a new, separate, targeted threat, or
is this just a response to SCO's Fortune 1000 letters?
Waiting on those copies...
John. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: poncewattle on Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 09:37 PM EST |
In reviewing the copy I received today with my transcript, I see a few minor
differences in the letter from Lehman to SCO.
Opening paragraph should read "SCO's letters of December 19, 2003 and
January 16, 2004 to Mr. Richard Fuld and of January 16, 2004 to Mr. Jonathon
Beyman..."
Also, second paragraph should say "issues" and not issue.
Finally, the letter to SCO is dated 30 January 2004.
I sent all info to PJ, who looks like she's been really busy today and this
stuff is just more for her to go through of course![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:03 AM EST |
| That SCO claimed wasn't a legal threat, but merely a discussion of a
hypothetical situation that they sent out to random people, simply because SCO
so loves a good debate? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
