|
Red Hat's Reply in Support of its Motion to Supplement the Record |
|
Monday, March 01 2004 @ 03:47 PM EST
|
Here is Red Hat's Reply in Support of its Motion to Supplement the Record. The PDF is here. Thanks once again to the faithful poncewattle for going to the courthouse. Red Hat says SCO is just wrong. They point to their earlier Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and say that it is full of facts and case law to support their position. The supplemental material is just more proof of the ongoing threatening conduct already in the record, and the new letters they hope the judge to take notice of refer back to the earlier May, 2003 letters, all of which were received by the same Red Hat customer. You get the feeling that Red Hat is saying, Your Honor, their arguments are so wrong, we're confident you already realize it.
************************************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
________________________________________________
RED HAT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE SCO GROUP, INC. (formerly Caldera International, Inc.),
Defendant.
_______________________________________________
REPLY OF RED HAT INC. IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
Civil Action No.: 03-772-SLR
_______________________________________________
On February 11, 2004, the plaintiff, Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") moved to
supplement the record with regard to the motion to dismiss for lack of a
justiciable controversy filed by The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"). SCO argues
that no supplementation should occur because the test for the existence of
a justiciable controversy - a "reasonable apprehension" of suit - is
determined by evidence that exists as of the date that suit was brought,
and the supplemental materials submitted by Red Hat are dated after that
time. SCO's arguments completely miss the point. Red Hat's motion to
supplement cites additional evidence to demonstrate that an apprehension
of suit was indeed reasonable when Red Hat filed its Complaint, because
SCO's threatening conduct has continued unabated and has escalated -
exactly as Red Hat predicted. Simply put, by explicitly stating now that
suits against end users of Linux are going to be commenced, SCO has
demonstrated that Red Hat's fears that exactly that would happen were not
misguided or ill-founded, but were objectively reasonable.
As an initial matter, both parties agree that the test for a justiciable
controversy is whether a "reasonable apprehension" of suit exists. Red
Hat, in its opposition to SCO's motion to dismiss, detailed an exhaustive
list of factual evidence and case law that plainly establish such a
reasonable apprehension in this case. Among other things, in its
Complaint, Red Hat specifically noted that "in May 2003, SCO sent
approximately 1,500 letters to actual or potential users of LINUX,
claiming that those companies could be liable to SCO for using LINUX."
(Complaint, Paragraph 42). Red Hat quoted from the letters themselves, in which
SCO plainly stated that LINUX "infringes on [its] Unix intellectual
property and other rights," explicitly threatened "to aggressively protect
and enforce these rights," and warned that "legal liability" to SCO may
rest with end users of LINUX. (Id.). In its opposition to SCO's motion to
dismiss, Red Hat noted these threats. See Red Hat Opposition to SCO's
Motion to Dismiss, at 12-14.
SCO's recent letters and public statements - as articulated in the motion
to supplement - are simply proof that Red Hat's apprehension of suit
against Red Hat or its customers was reasonable at the time Red Hat filed
its Complaint - the apprehension, according to SCO itself, is about to
become a reality. [1] Nothing in the law requires an actual suit to have been
commenced for "reasonable apprehension" to exist, but the fact that a suit
is subsequently filed or even more explicitly threatened plainly
demonstrates that an earlier apprehension was in fact more than
reasonable. That is exactly the case here.
Second, the letters attached to Red Hat's motion demonstrate that a
specific Red Hat customer was one of the recipients of SCO's May 2003
threats, prior to the filing of this case by Red Hat, and that SCO's
conduct since that time demonstrates that the apprehension that a Red Hat
customer will be sued was reasonable. That is, SCO's December 19, 2003
letter to a Red Hat customer (attached to the motion to supplement)
explicitly makes reference to SCO's May 2003 letter. In its December 19
letter, SCO itself characterizes its earlier, pre-suit letter as a
warning: "In May 2003, SCO warned about enterprise use of the Linux
operating system violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX
technology." (Red Hat Motion to Supplement, Ex. A). In December, SCO asked
that steps be taken to "discontinue these violations," and then publicly
promised to begin suing Linux end users this month. (Motion to Supplement,
at Paragraph 8). These post-suit activities are proof that exactly the kind of
campaign and tactics that Red Hat predicted would continue in its
Complaint have in fact continued and escalated - from warnings and threats
to aggressively enforce intellectual property rights to explicit
statements about the imminent commencement of lawsuits.
At bottom, the notion underlying SCO's opposition to the motion to
supplement - that nothing it later does can be proof that an earlier fear
of suit was in fact reasonable - is simply wrong. Accordingly, Red Hat's
motion to supplement should be allowed, and SCO's motion to dismiss should
be denied.
DATED: February 26, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
RED HAT, INC.
By its attorneys
Josy W. Ingersoll (#1088)
Adam W. Poff (#3990)
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, L.L.P.
[address, phone, fax]
William F. Lee
Mark G. Matuschak
Michelle D. Miller
Donald R. Steinberg Hale and Dorr L.L.P.
[address, phone]
[1] Indeed, even SCO does not question that its recent statements would constitute a "reasonable apprehension" of suit.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire, hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
document were caused to be served on February 26, 2004 upon the following
counsel of record:
BY HAND DELIVERY
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
[address]
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mark J. Heise, Esquire
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, L.L.P.
[address]
_________signed________________
Josy W. Ingersoll
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:26 PM EST |
Well, it was EXACTLY as I expected.....
That worries me :p
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:27 PM EST |
poncewattle, Thanks!
PJ, Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:36 PM EST |
How to deal with this symbolic* escalation of FUD by SCO
1. Assemble a list of email addresses, fax numbers, cell phone numbers, street
and office addresses and other contact info for computer-related writers,
interested parties, legal authorities if applicable, official newspapers of
record if applicable, parties having a neutral standing with regards to ongoing
SCO-related court actions (these may or may not exist in the USA or elsewhere)
and anybody else I may have overlooked.
2. send a communication via letter (typed or printed), fax, etc. with a clearly
worded statement to the effect that personal attacks have commenced and include
as many sources as possible.
3. Do not include your personal views if at all possible. These may serve to
cloud the issue.
*symbolic in this instance indicates that interested parties are conspiring to
smear their opponents.
The key word here is conspiracy, of course. The best way to deal with this
pre-meditated attack on an individual is to expose it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not a good idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:16 PM EST
|
Authored by: Jude on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:36 PM EST |
Red Hat's argument sure sounds a lot like Groklaw's best shot at what they
should say.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hbo on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:36 PM EST |
That has got to be the shortest non-judicial filing I've seen in any of these
cases so far!
What was that about the inverse relationship between the number of words and the
strength of the case? 8)
---
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there"
- Will Rogers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: snorpus on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:45 PM EST |
At bottom, the notion underlying SCO's opposition to the motion
to supplement ... is simply wrong.
I sure wish Red Hat
would quit pussy-footing around, and say what it really means. --- 73/88
de KQ3T [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: meat straw on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST |
"In December, SCO asked that steps be taken to 'discontinue these violations,'
and then publicly promised to begin suing Linux end users this month."
When
using FUD, it comes back to haunt.
I am happy to see SCOG feeling the
repercussions of thier negative publicity campaign.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:57 PM EST |
>> SCO's arguments completely miss the point. Red Hat's motion to
supplement cites additional evidence to demonstrate that an apprehension of suit
was indeed reasonable when Red Hat filed its Complaint, because SCO's
threatening conduct has continued unabated and has escalated - exactly as Red
Hat predicted. <<
Actually, although I hope SCO crashes and burns, Red Hat's argument here is
incorrect. It's a classic example of the post hoc ergo proper hoc logical
fallacy. That an event occurs is no evidence that the belief that that event
would occur was reasonable. For example, I remember reading years ago about a
guy who was convinced that his destiny was to be struck and killed by lightning.
He did everything he could to avoid situations where that might occur, and yet
he was in fact struck and killed by lightning. Was that event proof that somehow
his fear was reasonable? Of course not. And yet Red Hat is arguing on the same
basis.
Of course, Red Hat's position is reasonable in the sense that (a) mad dogs bite
anything they can get their teeth into, and (b) SCO is a mad dog. On that basis
Red Hat might argue successfully that SCO should have been taken at their word.
Of course, SCO has threatened numerous times to do things that they haven't
done, so perhaps they really never did intend to take any action against Red Hat
customers. It was pretty clear that SCO has no idea who Red Hat customers are
anyway. Of course, it'd be nice to see SCO argue that side, "Your Honor, we
threaten a lot of things that we don't really mean, and anyway we're too stupid
to figure out what we're doing."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Red Hat is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc - Authored by: jam on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:04 PM EST
- Red Hat is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:11 PM EST
- Red Hat is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc - Authored by: minkwe on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:17 PM EST
- Technically, you're both wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:35 PM EST
- Red Hat is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc - Authored by: Christian on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
- Continuing behavior COUNTS - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:12 PM EST
- Red Hat is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc - Authored by: Larry West on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST
- How about looking up your Latin terms - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST
- Red Hat is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 11:19 PM EST
- post hoc ergo propter hoc and where flies come from - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 02:00 AM EST
- Red Hat is arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc - Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 03:14 AM EST
- Lightning is truly random, SCO attack is planned - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:24 PM EST
|
Authored by: cfitch on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 04:59 PM EST |
have additional evidence now because of the EV1 SCO IP license announcement.
Perhaps this was already stated on Groklaw and I missed it.
Anyway, EV1 Redhat Linux on its servers that it uses for hosting in addition to
BSD and Windows. Lewis said that this might be proof now of interference in
Redhat's business with its customers since EV1 *might* be a Redhat customer.
This might end up being pretty big if it's true..
thoughts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ares_Man on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:02 PM EST |
I just installed Fedora on my home computer and I'm pretty excited about it.
Oops. Sorry, SCO, no money went to you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:04 PM EST |
SCO has taken the novel approach of arguing that it doesn't matter if Red Hat
was right to be scared, just because SCO continued to threaten its customer and
continued to demand money from its customer, but did it after Red Hat filed
suit. That's odd, even for lawyers.
To be perfectly clean the judge could simply deny the original motion to
dismiss, on the basis of the original filing and let this motion to supplement
die a natural death. All of the stuff in the motion to supplement can be brought
in at trial when necessary.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST |
My network/hosting provider, EV1 (18,000+ servers) has decided to pay SCO their
extortion fees.
PJ, can you find any EV1 Microsoft connections? I'm moving elsewhere, but this
sucks big time. I thought SCO was lying about "licensees", but it's
apparently true! Some idiot will always part with their money. And the fees are
non refundable, if SCO loses![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yabut... - Authored by: Jude on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST
- Sorry, need to vent - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:16 PM EST
- Time to boycott EV1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST
- EV1Servers - very weird. - Authored by: kberrien on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
- Sorry, need to vent - Authored by: John Hasler on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:04 PM EST
- Word on the street - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST
- Source? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:31 PM EST
- CNET and others - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:24 PM EST
- Sorry, need to vent - Authored by: Liquor A. on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:31 PM EST
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:07 PM EST |
I'm sure Blake Stowell and all the relevant attorneys had this document long
before we did. Hence all the FUD today. Thanks for everything, PJ and
poncewattle! I'm beginning to regain my faith in humanity from this
site. --- "Truly, if Te is strong in one, all one needs to do is sit on
one's ass, and the corpse of one's enemy shall be carried past shortly." (seen
on USENET) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:11 PM EST |
So how much did EV1 pay for the license? They certainly didn't pay list price as
that would come to many $millions.
Did EV1 pay anything at all?
Concidering the bad feelings being expressed in the Ev1 customer forums they may
well lose
some business.
Can we expect to find that EV1 now owns a chunk of
SCOX options?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "For their customers", but one BIG problem!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST
- "For their customers", but one BIG problem!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:35 PM EST
- "For their customers", but one BIG problem!! - Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST
- "For their customers", but one BIG problem!! - Authored by: Lev on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST
- a big question... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:53 PM EST
- "For their customers", but one BIG problem!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:12 PM EST
- Just no. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 08:42 PM EST
- EV1 a spammer site? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST
- OT: EV1 and their SCO IP license - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:37 PM EST
|
Authored by: jre on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 05:27 PM EST |
I can accept that
"the test for the existence of a justiciable
controversy - a "reasonable apprehension" of suit - is determined by evidence
that exists as of the date that suit was brought ... "
because
that's just the way it is.
But that doesn't stop me from asking
why?
From the standpoint of the public good, it would seem that
such a rule only encourages the defendant in a declaratory judgment case to
engage in even more misbehavior: "Ha, ha, you've already filed, so now
is my chance to get in all the licks I can!"
From a purely practical
standpoint, I wonder if Red Hat is somehow barred from making the same complaint
in two (non-overlapping) filings. If not, then they could just drop this one
and file again, to re-start the clock and admit all the new bad stuff SCO
has done.
That seems awfully clunky, and brings me back to my original
question -- what purpose does it serve to slam the door on
evidence arising
after the suit was brought? It seems just as relevant as the earlier evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST |
EV1
customers angry, someone said Ev1 CEO will make a statement tonight, on their
forum [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST |
So who (apart from SCO) didn't know this response from Red Hat was coming?
Check out:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2004022404040924&tit
le=They+walked+into+Red+Hat%27s+trap&type=article&order=&pid=82886
They walked into Red Hat's trap
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST
> Anyway, I got a copy and will be getting it to PJ asap. Basically, SCO is
saying
that Redhat shouldn't be permitted to supplement the record because the lawsuit
threats came after the suit was filed.
Assuming this is correct, I think they (SCO) walked into Red Hat's trap
Red Hat could have picked numerous different statements after they filed suit.
And SCO would argue these are inadmissable as they occurred after the suit was
filed.
However, Red Hat was clever, they didn't just pick any statement from SCO.
Rather they picked statements which explained earlier statements by SCO, i.e. a
letter which refers back to the May 2003 letters.
In short:
(A) Red Hat could have picked some random statement by SCO after the lawsuit
was
filed, and SCO might successfully argue the statement was inadmissable.
However:
(B) Red Hat picked a letter which refers back to the May 2003 letter. And
remember how SCO explained the May 2003 letter to the Delaware court?
RH: The May 2003 letter is a legal threat
SCO: Oh no it's not. It's just general information about the legal risks of
using Linux. It's not about RedHat customers. Blah Blah etc.
RH: Your Lenham Bro's threat letter refers back to the May 2003 letter, and is
about a Red Hat customer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:12 PM EST |
From Novell case:
3 - Memorandum by Novell Inc in support of [2-1] motion to dismiss (blk) [Entry
date 02/10/04]
So it's been 20 days so far - any sign of a SCO reply?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5167829.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST |
"EV1Servers.net, a Houston-based company that hosts Web sites for
clients and a division of Everyones Internet, signed a deal with SCO for running
thousands of Linux servers without facing legal consequences from SCO.
EV1Servers.net didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment."
Read more of the following here:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 07:56 PM EST |
It's pretty clear the courts are not going to address Red Hat's issue in any
timely manner.
What value is the Red Hat effort effort if SCO uses the stolen time just to end
up sueing anyway? Heck, what good two cents is the whole notion behind this law
anyway?
If you have a law, and it won't be enforced, do you have a law at all?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 08:06 PM EST |
I think this article, in particular, is a perfect example of what Blake Stowell
was talking about when he refered to the lack of credibility:
I
find that there is so much misinformation on Groklaw that is misconstrued and
twisted that it's probably one step above a lot of the ranting and dribble that
takes place on Slashdot.
PJ just trusts that poncewattle has
not just "doctored up" a filing from Red Hat; and all the rest of us just fall
into line with her "group think."
People, Look at the
wookie...
I can see this is hopeless, if you are going to insist on
reading the court record and acting like that means more than the SCOundrels'
batherings to the press, well then I don't suppose there is ever any hope of
your all coming around and seeing the SCOundrels' well-reasoned arguments. I
mean, for goodness sake, would you all just for a minute look at the
wookie?
The Flatlander
Thank you PJ and poncewattle, once
again for supplying the facts in this case. There is no where
else for the rest of us to turn. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 08:41 PM EST |
<tinfoil hat>
I wonder if there is a connection between the EV1 `license' and the promise of a
new suit against a linux user tomorrow.
<imagine>
Darl on the Phone to Bill Gates
BILL: YOu need to sue a linux user Darl. We've got to turn up the heat. These
guys are laughing at us.
DARL: Look - you know I'd love to help you guys - but we're already stretched to
the limit with the lawsuits we've got. The cashflow situation frankly isn't
looking good. If you could see your way clear to buying another `linux license'
or three, we could maybe manage it, but otherwise ...
BILL: We can't do that Darl. We've already got one, and it would be just a bit
obvious if we started buying more. Tell you what though - let me talk to some
people. There are a couple of companies owe us big favours, and we might be able
to persuade them to buy a license if we agree to refund the cost. I'll get back
to you on that one ...
</imagine>
It would explain a lot yes?
</tinfoil hat>
... bloody conspiracy theorists. What a load of rubbish ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:01 PM EST |
Innocent victim or willing accomplice - you decide
Here are some
new articles with quotes from Robert Marsh of
EV1Servers.net:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5167825.html
EV1Servers.net isn't financially tied to SCO, he added. "We don't have any
stake in SCO, and we don't own any options on a personal or corporate basis. Nor
are investors in our company investors in SCO," Marsh said.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=1
8201361
Marsh was in San Francisco on Monday with SCO Group CEO Darl
McBride attending the Software 2004 Conference. McBride was at the conference
hosting a session titled "Hardball With Darl McBride."
One oddity
struck me....
In the ZDNet article, Marsh repeatedly asserts that
EV1Servers.net has no financial type arrangement with SCO.
Meanwhile,
in the InformationWeek article, we discover Marsh and McBride are attending a
conference together.
While the two are not contradictory, you have
to ask **WHY** would a "SCO victim" be attending SCO PR events?
Do
antelopes go on vacation with lions?
Does your chicken dinner jump up
on your plate, and tell everybody that it feels good to be
eaten?
You can draw your own conclusions about the nature of the
relationship between EV1Servers.net and SCO - but when you do - please take
in account the two seem to be going on a little tour together!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jog on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:01 PM EST |
Earnings report for Wed. must really be bad. :o)
jog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:08 PM EST |
A bit dated and quite off-topic:
Dilbert Comic by Scott Adams, March 29th,
1993
Scene: Dogbert is a television news reporter, last
frame.
Our person of the week is Darryl, who, despite
his tiny brain, found success through a life of
crime.
Ref: Still Pumped From Using The
Mouse, A DILBERT Book by Scott Adams, p. 65 (I could not find a
link.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 09:59 PM EST |
CNET News.com has an article up titled "Survey: Linux programmers yawn
at SCO". According to CNET, the Evans Data Group survey found that most
Linux developers (73%) do not believe SCO's claims. Not surprising.
More
interestingly, they also report that:
About 29 percent of
programmers using Linux write no open-source software, while 13 percent write
nothing but open-source software.
I don't claim to know if this is
good or bad, but it is interesting.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 10:09 PM EST |
I guess there isn't a law enforcement officer in the country who has even the
slightest interest in how this happened.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:21 AM EST |
I've been thinking lately that the Red Hat case is SCO's best chance for a win.
That is because for Red Hat to prevail, they haev to prove their allegations, in
essence show that there is no Unix code in Linux. It's mostly a matter of who
has the burden of proof.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|