|
| Authored by: Weeble on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:53 PM EST |
Well, either I get to be the first poster this time (of course, since the site's
apparently being /.'ed, there may be a dozen or more comments in line to be
posted), or else I get to ask the question "Was DaimlerChrysler on anyone's
short list?" Enquiring minds want to know!
---
IANBAHD--I Ain't Nothin' But A Hound Dog (A Smart One, Tho).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Dave23 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:09 PM EST |
| Yep.
And the automotive theme continues. There's lots of Linux used in
"Detroit" so I'm not surprised that eventually one of the automakers would get
hit with a SCOsuit.
Interesting that from the PR and that SCO has filed in
Oakland Circuit Court -- a Michigan state court -- the presumption is that this
is purely a contractual bicker.
Maybe this will give my good friends over on the east side of the
state something other than code or science fiction to talk about next month.
:-)
---
Gawker [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:09 PM EST |
Now all cars and the repairing of cars are their Intellectual Property! Must
all drivers and mechanics buy a license?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mhoyes on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:14 PM EST |
This doesn't appear to even be about Linux, but just Daimler-Chrysler having not
done the audit in the time frame that was requested. I don't know what the
contract states, so I don't know how reasonable the request was as far as time
frame, but this sounds like one SCOG could actually have a case for.
The one I am interested in is the one against AutoZone. It also seems that SCOG
is seeing IBMs hands in everything now, from news orginizations, to Linux
people, to the weather.
meh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gnutechguy99 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST |
Yet another fishing expedition from SCO. SCO will again lie to the publci and
claim this is about Linux when the court documents will reveal a micky mouse
case about contracts, which we all know you use against people you have
relationships with.
Can't DC or AutoZone invoke RICO against
SCO? Shouldn't other suckers, er, users, or SCO UNIC be considering that option
now as SCO will continue to just sue and sue and sue?
Lastly, can't a
writ of quo warranto be issued in DE? ISn't that a legal instructment to compel
a government offical to do their job? IANAL, just asking.
"... and
beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:26 PM EST |
Current theory in our office is that SCO is suing its way through the Yellow
Pages (White Pages for you Americans), starting at A for Automobiles.
Gerv[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Funny how SCO with thier sell-out lawyer agreement keeps taking on companies
that could eat them . . .
I wonder what they're trying to do . . .hmmmmm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MalFal on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST |
Hmmm... interesting that they decided to file the lawsuit for DAIMLER/Chrysler
in Michigan rather than using their German division to file it in their
worldwide headquarters hometown of Stuttgart, Germany. OOOPS... on second
thought, I guess that would be a bad idea. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST |
What a choice of company to sue! Can something be made of the German connection?
SCO agrees to recant in Germany and then they sue a subsidiary of a German
company?
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:56 PM EST |
See
this
article on LinuxToday
.
McBride explained, since DaimlerChrysler has
not certified that they have or have not complied, SCO felt obligated to file
the suit in order to check the compliance of this license
demand.
and...
One analyst asked whether today's legal actions would
set a precendent to SCO's existing customers that they might be
sued.
McBride replied that they would have no issues with any customer
that lived up to their contractual agreements.
So do I understand
this? DM is being sued for not having certified that they have complied with
their SCO agreement? Did DM just blow them off, or is there something in the
"certification" about stating that you do not run any Linux?
I
just loved this one...
McBride fielded questions from analysts and
reporters regarding the company's SCOsource initiatives, including a direct
question regarding a former AutoZone employee's public assertion on Groklaw that
no SCO libraries were ported to Linux. McBride replied that he could not respond
specifically because on a request from Judge Wells to not comment on
specifics in the IBM case.
Two points:
1. The question
didn't have anything to do with the IBM case.
2. Since when did the
"request" by Judge Wells ever stop DMcB from shooting his mouth
off?
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: walth on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:04 PM EST |
Note: They ARE suing their own customers now.
Remember when they sent the letters to their customers demanding they certify
they were in compliance with the licensing terms? Evidently DaimlerChrysler did
not and are being sued.
Note: This suit is not about using/not using TSGs "IP" (whatever that
is legally), nor is it about a customer not following the license terms - it is
about a SCO customer REFUSING TO CERTIFY THEY ARE ABIDING BY THE TERMS OF THE
LICENSE THEY HAVE WITH SCO.
Note: According to this press release (court filing may be different) TSG is
asking for damages - what damages could acrue from not certifying compliance
with ilcensing terms? I can see damages from not complying with the licnesing
terms, but from not CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE?
SCO's lawsuit seeks the following relief:
* Enter an order that DaimlerChrysler has violated
Section 2.05 of the Software Agreement by refusing
to provide the certification of compliance with
the "provisions" of that Agreement;
* Enter an order permanently enjoining DaimlerChrysler
from further violations of the DC Software
Agreement;
and
* Issue a mandatory injunction requiring
DaimlerChrysler to remedy the effects of its
past violations of the DaimlerChrysler Software
Agreement;
and
* Award damages in an amount to be determined at
trial;
and
* Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff together
with costs, attorneys' fees and any such other
or different relief that the Court may deem to
be equitable and just.
Interesting that the press release that is timed at 11:11 mentions that you can
listen to their conference call at 11:00, but you should call in 15 minutes
before that. Can anyone explain how at 11:11 I can cll in at 10:45? Personally,
I can't seem to figure out how to do that![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:07 PM EST |
Our own clients. They paid large amounts of money for us to install our
operating system. We have indemnified our clients from other people, but we
refuse to indemnify against our crack legal team.
We change our agreements as per our original agreement that said we could change
our agreements. And our clients enjoy our changes. It will provide a safe and
profitable computing experience for all concerned.
And if our clients attempt to rebel against our changes, we will ensure they pay
our legal team for each hour of research on how to encourage profitability.
Then we will create a new law that stipulates that if you have a contract with
us, you can not run any other operating system. This is not limited to AtariOS,
AmigaOS, CP/M, Microsoft Windows 95, MS-DOS 5.0, Macintosh System or any
derivites.
</troll off>
Ok folks, SCO is now pounding their own clients for not following instructions
on certifying a shop free from Linux. I would like to hear from a company who
clearly reported a shop free from the evil Tux.
This is forcing companies to put all their eggs into SCO's basket.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:09 PM EST |
Autozone a former client with no Openserver shared libraries on linux at all, DC
a current client...
If I was using any of SCOs Stuff (apart from SCOLinux, which they distributed
under the GPL), I would be calling IBM now, RIGHT NOW, to help me migrating away
from it !!!
RIGHT NOW...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST |
The financial press seems to be picking up on SCO's actions. First found an
interesting article on The Street (
http://w
ww.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04030310.htm
) with this
quote:
"SCO filed suit against AutoZone Tuesday in U.S.
District Court in
Nevada,
charging that the company violated SCO's Unix
copyrights through its
use of
Linux, according to a press release. In a
conference call Wednesday
morning,
CEO Darl McBride said SCO is in the
process of filing a similar suit
against
DaimlerChrysler in Michigan.
"But he further explained that SCO does not, in fact, know whether
Daimler's
use of Linux is violating its Unix software agreement with SCO.
Rather, Daimler
was among a group of Unix users who failed to respond to SCO's
request
asking
them to certify they are in compliance with their software
agreement.
Of the
more than 3,000 Unix licensees, more than half failed to
respond to such
requests from SCO mailed in December, McBride said."
But my favorite article as from the fine fellows at the
Motley Fool:
http://www.fool.com/Ne
ws/mft/2004/mft04030310.htm
bs (not the Utah BS)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: MalFal on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST |
Hmmm... interesting that they decided to file the lawsuit for DAIMLER/Chrysler
in Michigan rather than using their German division to file it in their
worldwide headquarters hometown of Stuttgart, Germany. OOOPS... on second
thought, I guess that would be a bad idea. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:19 PM EST |
(Gosh we're slow today - the world and his auntie must be hitting you!)
Seems to me that the DC suit is a bit like IBM - file something saying they did
something wrong and then hope something turns up later on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST |
Our own clients. They paid large amounts of money for us to install our
operating system. We have indemnified our clients from other people, but we
refuse to indemnify against our crack legal team.
We change our agreements as per our original agreement that said we could change
our agreements. And our clients enjoy our changes. It will provide a safe and
profitable computing experience for all concerned.
And if our clients attempt to rebel against our changes, we will ensure they pay
our legal team for each hour of research on how to encourage profitability.
Then we will create a new law that stipulates that if you have a contract with
us, you can not run any other operating system. This is not limited to AtariOS,
AmigaOS, CP/M, Microsoft Windows 95, MS-DOS 5.0, Macintosh System or any
derivites.
</troll off>
Ok folks, SCO is now pounding their own clients for not following instructions
on certifying a shop free from Linux. I would like to hear from a company who
clearly reported a shop free from the evil Tux.
This is forcing companies to put all their eggs into SCO's basket.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST |
...refusing to provide the certification of compliance with the
"provisions"...
Any chance to find out what these
"provisions" are/were? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: drh on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:41 PM EST |
Either the site is being slashdotted, suffering a DDOS
from SCO fans, or PJ is furiously typing in a new story :)
I have been lurking around the SCO saga since it started,
but today's announcements make me think that something is
very wrong here.
SCO could not have picked worse targets if they tried. Not
only do these companies (include the Lehman one as well)
have a horde of flesh eating lawyers, they are efficient
flesh eating lawyer well proven in and out of court.
Daimler-Chrysler in particular is a bad choice due to
being not only international, but German where SCO just
received a sanction.
It looks like like SCO is picking on companies who not
only are/were their customers, but companies who have
upset them in some form.
But really, nobody in the world is this stupid. I now have
a hard time believing that ANY lawyer would pick these
targets given any choice at all.
I smell a rat, I just can't see it yet.
(BTW, apologies if this shows up twice what with the
connection problems...)
---
Just another day...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:43 PM EST |
How does that saying go: "If you throw enough *** eventually some will
stick". That sounds like it is exactly what is going on here. The more
lawsuits SCO files, the greater the likelihood they will succeed in at least one
of them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:43 PM EST |
PJ,
May I suggest a way to maintain our "million eyes" on The SCO Group,
so that we cover all and stay focused? Not that you, mathfox and others aren't
making improvements as we go.
Have the site in sections for each litigator/litigatee pair (IBM vs SCO and SCO
vs IBM together, RedHat vs SCO, SCO vs AutoZone, SCO vs DamlierChrysler,
Australia vs SCO, etc.)
That way we can post where most appropriate to resist having important
information miss the attention of the good guys' lawyers. For GrokLawyers, some
main volunteer can read a section's postings and do a daily 'what's hot' and
'summary' in an overview section, plus keep you abreast of the thread.
There are enough of us, and those who choose to can specialize until dulled,
then jump to another pairing.
FWIW.
=========================================
PS: I know you are tough enough to take the abuse of leadership, because your
perspective and ideals are constant since the beginning. Think of it as practice
for being President in 4 years!
---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO, {;)}
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:46 PM EST |
"With over 20 years of experience with Intel® and UNIX systems, SCO
Professional Services
consultants can recommend specific solutions for your specific system, helping
you take full
advantage of Linux, and providing you with detailed plans and deployment."
http://artemis.sco.com/profservices/linux/lxupgr1.pdf
Makes you wonder how much of Unix SCO put into Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:49 PM EST |
Didn't Novell previously tell SCO something like "we direct you to stop
harassing the clients in these contracts whose revenue comes to US (Novell) and
which we pay YOU (SCO) a 5% fee to administer"?
Do these new suits represent additional evidence of breach of contract which
Novell can use against SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- YES!!!! - Authored by: swengr on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:29 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: zjimward on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:51 PM EST |
SCO may as well go after FedEx and St Jude Children's Hospital. Since both of
these also use Linux and are right here in Memphis.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 02:57 PM EST |
| Help me with this one.
SCOX is suing Daimler-Chrysler for not responding to
their "audit++" letter as required by their contract, and in today's conference
call Darl tells us that D-C is not a customer.
I'm having a hard time
understanding how SCOX is going to spin that one for the Court. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:00 PM EST |
..meanwhile, check your local court house, _in_case_ the
Serious Con Operation Group of Lindon, Utah, _does_ file
on someone in your area. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: moogy on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:05 PM EST |
What happend to their code of ethics wherein they
must treat customers fairly? They are demanding
that customers certify that they have no Linux
that contains SCOG IP, but never tell them what
the IP is. This is fair? Just how is any company
supposed to certify what is never defined?
Their last 2 filings just show that if you're either
a current customer or a former customer they are
coming after you. Gee, now why aren't the world's
companies lining up to do business with SCOG?
Go figure!
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arrg on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:25 PM EST |
This really seems strange. They had bad quarterly results and then announce they
are suing their own customer? I don't understand how this is supposed to make
other companies want to do business with them. Obviously being an SCO customer
is dangerous if you have a lot of money. I think if I were DC I would be looking
to change to Red Hat or something.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:29 PM EST |
This sounds like the old <a
href="http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture23.html">H
UAC</a> approach. DC refused to sign a SCOG loyalty oath, so SCOG assumes
DC is disloyal and attacks. And the AZ situation sounds the same. The language
used by SCOG in the IBM suit about AZ is the same. AZ was SCOG's loyal
customer, until IBM came between them and seduced AZ into being disloyal. So
SCOG attacks both.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes! - Authored by: gdeinsta on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:34 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: kb8rln on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:29 PM EST |
Here it is bittorrent of today phone call
http://sco.penguinman.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: m_si_M on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:40 PM EST |
So you can be sued for not answering a letter you don't have to answer.
It's getting more and more interesting...
---
C.S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arrg on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:45 PM EST |
This really seems strange. They had bad quarterly results and then announce they
are suing their own customer? I don't understand how this is supposed to make
other companies want to do business with them. Obviously being an SCO customer
is dangerous if you have a lot of money. I think if I were DC I would be looking
to change to Red Hat or something.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: wllacer on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST |
Wouldn't guess?
Deutsche Bank (around 15%, according to Yahoo)
<sarcasm>
I'm assuming today is a happy day for Mr. SCO Skiba,.
</sarcasm>
BTW, I felt soooo lonely w/o groklaw this evening (in Sevilla)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:57 PM EST |
Their stock is kind of tanking today. per http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox as
of 14:54 cst, price $11.38, prev close $13.42, Change -2.04 15.20%, vol 648053,
avg vol 217227.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Yobgod on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:58 PM EST |
So what do we know, if anything, about these license agreements TSG has with
their clients?
It seems to me that a license agreement shouldn't (or possibly may not be
allowed to) restrict your conduct on unrelated matters, like what OSs you do or
do not choose to run on other systems.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: zjimward on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:12 PM EST |
Now that SCO has picked two companies two sue this little article at Netcraft
has appeared:
Executives at Autozone must be feeling unlucky at being the recipient of a
lawsuit from SCO when there are so many other corporate Linux users that SCO
could have chosen from.
However, the defence may take heart that the court in which SCO filed suit runs
its own web site on Linux, and that the key electronic documents SCO filed in
the case will be living on a Linux server. Plaintiffs filing lawsuits must enter
copies of their legal documents in Adobe PDF format in the court's Linux-based
Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, which will provide
electronic updates of case information for the litigants and their lawyers.
Presumably, that means SCO's lawyers filed the lawsuit using a system that it
contends infringes its intellectual property. SCO's numerous press
pronouncements have thus far not mentioned whether its lawyers sent the Nevada
court a cease-and-desist letter prior to filing the documents, or indeed whether
it plans to file suit against the court itself.
The link is here:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/03/03/court_that_will_hear_sco_v_autozone
_lawsuit_itself_runs_linux.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: JustFree on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:25 PM EST |
“Why attack big companies? It's simple, Watson. SCO wants to get bought out.”
I have to read this more. Do I hear circus. Why would a company want to buy
SCO. It would be better to have SCO wither away. Then have other companies
purchase there assets. I just hope one of those companies is not Microsoft.
I would agree that their antics suggest that one possibility is that they want
to be bought out, but DailmerChrysler does not manufacture commercial software
or computers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: JustFree on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:26 PM EST |
“Why attack big companies? It's simple, Watson. SCO wants to get bought out.”
I have to read this more. Do I hear circus. Why would a company want to buy
SCO. It would be better to have SCO wither away. Then have other companies
purchase there assets. I just hope one of those companies is not Microsoft.
I would agree that their antics suggest that one possibility is that they want
to be bought out, but DailmerChrysler does not manufacture commercial software
or computers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Buy out SCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:39 PM EST
- Buy out SCO? - Authored by: beast on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
- Buy out SCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:18 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: JeR on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:32 PM EST |
Looks like it's still breaches of contract that The SCO Group goes for, not
copyright infringement. Funny how SCOSource is now entirely based on, well,
baseless allegations, since none of the lawsuits TSG has initiated has a claim
of copyright infringement in it anymore. Every case is announced as a lawsuit
about copyright infringement, but it now seems every target TSG goes for is
actually one of their own clients that allegedly breached some contract
(possibly for copyright licenses, of course, but that's not what the suits are
about).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:32 PM EST |
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2004/DCComplaint.pdf
Y'all have fun![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:57 PM EST |
What's up with Groklaw today, I've had trouble getting thru all
day?
Anyway, alleged, details of SCO's suit against AutoZone (posting
this to both recent
stories)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43910.htm
SCO is suing AutoZone, the premier auto parts chain and former SCO user, worth
about $5.5 billion in annual sales, for violating SCO's contested "Unix
copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code,
structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary Unix System V
code."
In the suit SCO defines this widgetry as including SVR5 static
shared libraries; dynamic shared libraries and inter-process communication
mechanisms including semaphores, message queues and shared memory; enhanced
reliable signal processing; the SVR5 file system switch interface; virtual file
system capabilities; process scheduling classes including real-time support;
asynchronous I/O; file system quotas; support for lightweight processes (kernel
threads); user-level threads; and loadable kernel modules.
Questions
1. Has any of "inter-process
communication mechanisms including semaphores, message queues and shared memory;
enhanced reliable signal processing; the SVR5 file system switch interface;
virtual file system capabilities; process scheduling classes including real-time
support; asynchronous I/O; file system quotas; support for lightweight processes
(kernel threads); user-level threads; and loadable kernel modules." been
produced in discovery to IBM's interrogatory #12? I thought SCO were supposed to
identify all their alleged rights?
2. Are SCO claiming all the stuff
quoted in question 1 as being exclusive to them? In which case, it sounds to me
like all operating systems and much other software, by definition infringes by
their theory?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST |
| The AutoZone and Daimler Chrysler complaints are now available as PDF. These are
not as far as I know the official court documents so don't start transcribing
because only court documents are safe to repost.
Autozone: here
Daimler Chrysler: here
The
AutoZone one isn't about the libraries - it really is claiming infringment of
Unix code and manual copyrights in Linux as far as I can tell. If that is the
case then if AutoZone have bought a copy of RHEL for each of their servers they
can simply respond we never copied it other than the implicit copying needed to
run it which the courts have said doesn't count. The complaint has been
correctly filed in the district rather than state court for a change.
I
haven't read the DC one yet but understand from Yahoo that it is simply a
complaint that they refused to respond to the audit request that exceeded the
scope of what they were allowed to audit.
These cases could both be
dismissed quickly if given the right legal team and a fast acting court which
could be interesting for SCO.
While I've been typing this poncewattle has
made the official court version of the Autozone one available here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:41 PM EST |
For all you conspiracy theorists, this is the technique known as create the
problem, then present the solution.
SCO is paid to create the problem.
Who is the solution? If the solution is paying for their to be a problem, well,
then....
[click][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST |
I bet they got that clause in the German settlement because they planned to sue
Daimler.
The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:50 PM EST |
| I haven't been able to view Groklaw for hours, and now it's back, shortly after
the U.S. markets closed.
It's been a busy day, with lots of people posting
links to Groklaw, so maybe the site was just slashdotted. Or maybe it just had a
technical failure.
Or maybe, and this is just speculation, Groklaw was the
victim of a DOS attack. Why? Money!
There was a great deal of money changing
hands today, and a lot more at risk, all depending on SCO's new lawsuits, and
which story reached the press.
Mostly, the technology press was printing
lies. Through laziness, or bias (friends of Microsoft?), they just repeated
SCO's claim that the new lawsuits were about Linux in general. See these
examples:
InfoWorld
: SCO sues first Linux user, AutoZone
CNet: SCO suits target two
big Linux users
NWFusion: SCO sues
Linux users DaimlerChrysler, AutoZone
But, as many Groklaw posters have
stated, the lawsuits are _not_ about Linux in general, but are, instead,
specific to those two former customers of SCO. Rather than claiming that Linux
in general contains SCO code, the lawsuits allege that those two customers used
some of SCO's code without permission.
The difference is substantial.
Ignoring the weakness of SCO's whole anti-Linux position for a moment, a general
claim against Linux could be extended to all the millions of Linux users,
forming a basis for the potentially huge financial gains that SCO is claiming.
But the lawsuit that SCO actually brought is very limited, and can only be
extended to a few thousand SCO customers, and only to those who personally
violated their SCO licenses.
Plus, let's not forget the
frequently cited Groklaw post refuting SCO's claims against
AutoZone.
So, if those in the media, and individual investors, had been able
to reach Groklaw today, what might have been different? Would SCOX have fallen further? Would AZO have stayed up, instead of losing $400 million in value?
We'll never know.
In other words, there was a lot on money at stake, some of
it depending on Groklaw's information never reaching the public before close of
market.
Okay, so I'm a conspiracy nut. But suffice it to say that I am
curious. I guess I'll never know the answer, of course, unless PJ tells us that
it was just a technical glitch. Otherwise, it would be hard to distinguish
between a slashdotting, and an intentional DOS attack.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:07 PM EST |
The order can be found here:
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/reports/media/img0303a.tif
It's on pages 58-66 in this file.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: superluser on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST |
A Day in SCO's Life
by Andrew A.
Gill
To the tune of A Day in the Life
by the Beatles
I read the news today oh boy
About a company that
just got sued
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to
laugh heh
I saw the market graph heh.
He switched from Unix System
Five
He didn't notice SCO was nuts
A crowd of lawyers went and helped
They'd seen this case
before
Nobody was really sure
If he was from the Fortune
Five.
I saw a site today oh boy
The Board of Regents had just won
the case
A crowd of people powered down
But I just had to
load
having read the code
I'd love to turn you on.
Woke up, got
out the lead,
Dragged a brief across my head
Found my way to court and
killed their case,
And looking up, I noticed Darl's hate.
Darl
said, now that's not fair
The judge's gaze sauteed his hair
Using Darl's
hair, I lit up a smoke,
Then Darl spoke and I went into a dream.
I
read the news today oh boy
Four thousand holes in SCO's new case
And
though the holes were rather large
They had to press the charge
Now they
know how many holes it takes to fill the garbage barge
I'd love to turn you
on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Polar Weasel on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:12 PM EST |
Magistrate Judge Wells' ruling on discovery is available, unless it's a joke.
Looks real, and here's the URL:
tinyurl.com/2jjk6
There also appears to be quite a bit of new stuff (dated 03-Mar-2004) on Pacer
which I'm going to go get now. Not sure exactly what all of it is.
-Polar Weasel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:13 PM EST |
Busy day today!
here on SCO's
site
Bit disappointing for the impatient and those wanting SCO
spanked in my view.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST |
tinyurl.com/2jjk6
(From the Yahoo! message boards)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rongage on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:56 PM EST |
I live in Pontiac - the county seat for Oakland County.
If anyone wants me to go to the court house to get some document copies, please
let me know!
---
Ron Gage - Linux Consultant
LPI1, MCP, A+, NET+
Pontiac, Michigan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: RSC on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:02 PM EST |
..or is it obvious to everybody that SCO seem to be avoiding actually sueing
anyone on the basis that "thier IP" has been stollen and distributed
with the Linux kernel?
Is that not the claim SCO has been making in the press all this time. I get the
feeling that SCO really don't beleive their own FUD. If they did, they would be
sueing a *Linux* end user for giving copies to his/her mates, or even a company
buying a copy of Linux and then installing it on 1000 PCs.
This "shared libraries" and "breech of contract" crap just
shows me what I have already known for some time. SCO do *not* have any
"stollen IP" in the linux kernel full stop.
The thing that astonishes me the most, is that they are now filing suits against
their own customers. If anyone says that SCO is a IT company now, they are
plainly lieing.
If I was a CEO of a SCO customer, I would be making plans to ditch SCO as
quickly as possible. I would be cheaper and a lot less hasle to migrate to Linux
real fast. I am also now convinced that EV1 has made a big mistake. How quickly
will that license they bought becaome worthless. SCO will have no customers at
all if they keep this type of action up. In fact I would be supprised if they
have any customers left in a year or two.
Was Darl hired to destroy The SCO Group? because if he was, he is doing a bang
up job.
RSC
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:11 PM EST |
Eat your heart out, you LOSERS!
I am FAMOUS, you are not! I am RICH, you are not! I am IMPORTANT, you are not!
When my defendants hear my DEMANDS, they TREMBLE and OBEY. All my JUDGES are
PUTTY in my hands.
A big LICENSEE and 2 LAWSUITS this month. are just the BEGINNING. Super
publicity!!!!! The courts are seeing things MY WAY! I have the GREEN LIGHT.
YES!!!!
America is TRULY the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY!!! (By the way, my stock price will
recover nicely tomorrow, I GUARANTEE it.)
-- Hugs and kisses, Darl
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:32 PM EST |
Since it concerns a Unix license, Novell could simply forbid SCO from pursuing
the suit. End of problem[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:42 PM EST |
Lol, those TSG guys are such cards. I could do better with an Ougi
Board. Oh wait, that's what they're using. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:43 PM EST |
The SCO Group's suit against Daimler-Benz-Chrysler suit has the look and feel of
a hissy fit. There are three reasons why the hissy fit might not get anywhere:
(1) DC is totally on Linux; (2) Novell directs the SCO Group not to harass DC,
and files a friend-of-the-court brief to that effect; (3) According to Lewis
Mettler, the SCO Group is imposing terms that go beyond the original signed
contract, and that's a no-go.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:48 PM EST |
SCO has sued 3 companies. What do all 3 have in common?
They all had business relations with OldSCO or SCOG. All found a better
product and provider than *SCO*. IBM had monterey. Autozone and
Daimlerchrlysler used to run SCO servers.
They have not sued anyone who was not a former customer or business partner. Is
this the message they want to send out? Do business with us, decide to stop
doing business with us, and somehow we will find you first on our lawsuit
lists?
Stupid Darl, very stupid. Even if this is not your motivation, appearance is
everything.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sbungay on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:59 PM EST |
Does anyone know what section 2.05 of the DC agreement is?
This appears to be SCO blowing smoke at the media to convince them there's a big
important fire in progress. It looks like their hope is that everyone will
assume this legal action involves Linux and their IP, because isn't that what
SCO does? Take companies to court for violating their alleged IP?
---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.
IANAL IAAP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:23 PM EST |
Text of the AutoZone lawsuit here in case no one's posted it yet.
http://lwn.net/Articles/74159/
http://lwn.net/images/pdf/AutoZoneFinalComplaint.pdf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:43 PM EST |
| My initial impressions as a non-lawyer and non-paralegal (reposted from the AZ
thread)...
The DaimlerChrysler lawsuit is, in a nutshell:
- DC is a
Unix source code licensee
- The terms of the Unix license permit SCO to
demand an accounting of the proper
enforcement of the Unix license terms -
typical stuff such as only running on
the licensed number of systems (parapgraph
2.05).
- The last sentence of 2.05 ends with "in full compliance with
the
provisions of this Agreement".
- the December letter that SCO sent to DC
asked about use of Linux, not directly
about the Unix licensing terms.
-
Linux is allegedly in violation of Unix IP as expressed in the Unix
source
license.
- therefore (according to SCO), the 2.05 sentence fragment
taken together with
the use of Linux imply that DC were obligated to respond to
the December letter,
even though it was about something else
entirely.
So yes, this is about the alleged Linux IP misappropiation,
but only if you're
willing to follow SCO's weird chain of conclusions.
The
AZ case:
- AZ uses Linux
- Linux allegedly violates Unix
copyrights.
- AZ distributes Linux? This isn't actually stated explicitly in
the lawsuit,
but without that there is no copyright issue at all involved.
-
therefore (according to SCO), AZ violates the Unix copyright
terms.
This is even shakier than the DC case. Note that it's not about
the SCO shared
libraries, it's about the use of Linux in general. But both
the
"distribution" and the "irreparable harm" caused will be a
big challenge to
prove in court.
In less polite circles, this would be considered to be a
shakedown, and the name
"SCOsa nostra" leaps to mind. But draw your own
conclusions... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:17 PM EST |
I have a question. How can SCO say they own Unix? Isn't that itself a lie--and
presumably isn't that against the law?
From what I've heard, about all they appear to own is some rights to one code
base of a Unix operating system. How can they say they own "Unix"
when they don't own the trademarks, don't own the patents, they don't manage the
Unix standard, and may not own the copyrights?
What is this anyway?
Rob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:52 PM EST |
I have been reading the Tech press's inane reports of SCOG'S FUD campaign
for months. The Tech press appeared to offer voice for SCOG's FUD.
For the first time, this week, I am seeing many informative, balanced pieces
from different publishers. Their quotes from the SCOG make SCOG look bad.
Of course these stories might not satisfy diehards, but they serve to signal a
major change in the business climate. Maybe telling the truth about the SCOG
now improves advertising income.
Be Brave and Persevere a while longer. Demand justice and you will see
justice meted out.
Did anyone notice that the AutoZone suit is over UNIXWARE libraries once
used to port SW from UNIX to Linux?
Does anyone think that the Chysler-Daimler suit is over a contract?
Does anyone think Daryl is going to sue over SCOG IP being in Linux?
In the old West they tried and hung rustlers! Now, that is Justice with a
capital
(pun) J.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST |
Since I just changed the oil in my Dodge pickup (Daimler/Chrysler) with 10W30
from AutoZone I'm posting this from my Windows box. If I used the Red Hat
machine they'd get me for sure.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:07 PM EST |
Daimler-Chrysler isn't the original licencee. It's a new company formed to hold
the merged companies. If I read the merger agreement right (it's huge), the old
Chrysler survives as a shell. It was accounted as a pooling of interest, but I
don't think that has a determining effect on the obligations of the new company.
Any of the IAAL crowd want to have a go at this?
I agree that it looks like Novell could waive Chrysler's obligations, unless
Chrysler signed with oldsco or newsco, for something of their's. I think the
complaint would mention this, if it were true. It's hard to see how SCO could
claim to be damaged by a reporting waiver absent some actual disclosure. With
disclosure, you would have a clone of a subset of the IBM case. Actual damages
would be token even if DC lost.
Does the EU have an FTC? A complaint from Daimler would likely get a sympathetic
hearing. SCO isn't the only one who can forum shop.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: eSavior on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:10 AM EST |
Could someone explain this to me?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/
bc?s=SCOX&t=5d
I would think that these cases would cause SCOX to
go UP not down. Insane drop off set aside, it seems like the anticipation caused
the stock to rise greatly, but once SCOX said who it was the stock went back to
what it was doing over the last few weeks, a steady decline. So any thoughts on
this?
IANAL, IDNFSO(I do not follow stocks often)---
/* Doom */ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:49 AM EST |
Let's assume some of the conspiracy theorists are right, and MS is behind
SCO.
Let's also assume, for arguments sake, that other auto industry firms
in Michigan are considering Linux, and perhaps even considering using Linux in
the heart of MS' business - desktops.
Now, with that in mind, what does
the choice of who to sue say to you? To me, it's a warning, by MS, to the rest
of the auto industry. Or maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: siasl on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 12:28 AM EST |
Moving forward, what can the Linux community really do to
help drive SCO bankrupt? I have a conterintuitive solution
to the Linux community's SCO problem.
I keep hearing lawyers say that you can't really sue an
entity for damages unless you can prove that they have
caused monetary loss. One example of this is - if a company
accidentally screws up your credit history, you can't sue them, unless you were
denied credit as a result of their
goof up.
So, what would happen to SCO is all Linux users wrote a letter to Daimler
Chrysler's legal department stating that
"well, I was going to buy a Daimler Chrylser XYZ, but now
that you are stealing SCO's software, I will buy a Ford
instead."
I can only imagine that if 10,000 letters showed up, this
would have an impact. 10,000 letters at $25,000 a car
is about $250,000,000 in lost sales.
We'll see what happens then. As you can see, IANAL, so
please comment on my pipe dream. Would it work? Maybe.
Would it give Daimler Chrysler a chance to bankrupt SCO?
Yes.
Autozone is a bit tougher, though. Saying I am not going
to spend $30 on my next oil change won't have the same
impact. Sorry, Autozone.
Finally, THANK YOU GROKLAW.NET. You have kept me sane
these past 8 months.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
