decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Parsing the New Lawsuits
Monday, March 08 2004 @ 02:41 AM EST

I'm deep in some Project Monterey research, which I should finish later today, barring breaking news, but in the meanwhile, you don't want to miss Mark Radcliff and Eben Moglen explaining the two new lawsuits, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler. Radcliff points out some difficulties SCO faces, thanks to Novell, and Eben tries to actually explain the cases in some detail, and it is a very thick soup indeed:

"If the legal issues were similar, it would be within the discretion of the federal district courts to ship the common issues to multidistrict litigation for resolution, Moglen said. . . .

"While all this litigation, if pursued all the way to resolution in the various courts, could drag on for years, Moglen pointed out that for that to happen 'SCO would have to have an infinite amount of time to remain in being. I have to also point out that the parties being sued here by SCO are its present and former customers.' . . .

"If AutoZone or DaimlerChrysler does not settle quickly, then SCO's theory of action has a real problem because you 'cannot sell licenses when you are in litigation against firm A to prove that you own what you are trying to license; and you are in litigation against firm B for needing a license and nobody has settled with you and people are saying that if you don't own what you are selling then I don't need to buy it.'

"'And if your infringement action if I don't buy your license isn't any good, then I shouldn't buy, and so I'm going to sit and wait. What judge is going to say I was intentionally infringing when it wasn't clear if the licensor owned what he was trying to license and was in litigation against somebody else who was defending that litigation and saying there was no infringement,' Moglen said.

"'You now have a little company suing four immense companies in different places on very different claims and supposing that it can take all of this on at once. My advice to potential and/or existing Linux customers who might be worried about being sued by SCO is that the lesson here is that your greatest danger of that is to be a SCO customer,' he said."

What is significant, to me, is that SCO seems to have deliberately brought cases that *can't* be lumped together for efficiency's sake. Perhaps they have no reason to desire a quick resolution.

French Groklaw

I thought you also might like to know that Groklaw has a French edition now, and a Spanish one is being prepared. Here's French Groklaw, traduit de l'anglais par Denis-Carl Robidouxin, in case you'd prefer to read the articles in French. Merci beaucoup, Denis-Carl!

  


Parsing the New Lawsuits | 346 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
URLs and Updates Here
Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:11 AM EST
Here's the place for updated info, news and urls, so everyone can find them
easily, without wading through hundreds of comments.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Errata Here
Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:12 AM EST
This is the thread for all my typos and other mistakes to be corrected. It will

help me find them quickly. Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:23 AM EST
I have thought for some time SCO and the and number of lawsuits they have
initiated remind me of this Babylon 5 Quote: "Only an idiot fights a war on two
fronts. Only the heir to kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."


http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/kngidiot.wav

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:41 AM EST
The idea of a French and/or Spanish version of groklaw is not a bad one.
However, I am concerned that French and/or Spanish speaking grokkers might be
isolated into their own little linguistic ghettos. Our struggle against the SCO
Group and the evil it represents is worlwide, and I'd like to see ideas that
worked in other countries be imported here and vice-versa: in other words, I'd
like to see all of us look for systematic PD (Positive Deviance) and take
advantage of it. Also, successes in one place will give encouragement to people
in other places: I'd like to see success feed upon success until success becomes
a tidal wave that will sweep the SCO Group under. I am concerned that editions
of groklaw in defferent languages will break up the groklaw community and cut
off that synergy, unless specific watchdog steps are taken and safeguards
built-in. In one sense, I couldn't care less because I was born in France, I
learned Spanish in California and German in New York at Columbia University. In
another, going through the various editions of groklaw might require more time
than I am willing to commit.

I acknowledge that good decisions with no bad side effects are extremely rare,
and that non-English editions of groklaw might turn out to be a good thing if
only because they would encourage non-English speakers to participate and
sometimes in crucial ways.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Imaginary Grounds Are Left?
Authored by: legal insanity on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:42 AM EST
I guess next they will sue because no one is believing their snakeoil is the
cure all.




---
Insanity Pleadings is the only Sensible Defense
To bad for SCOG, No INSANITY PLEAD in these Civil Matters

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:42 AM EST
Isn't it obvious by now? SCO doesn't intend to win -- hell it doesn't matter if
they win these cases. They have acheived their goal.

In a little over a year SCO has acheived what Microsoft has been trying to do
for almost ten years - discredit Linux.

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. FUD.

This isn't about a few billion dollars in licensing and restitution, it's about
unknown funds from those who stand to gain from damage to Linux.

Whether Groklawer's and /.er's want to admit it or not, it's working on many
levels.

The way I see it, this is a terrorist/suicide attack against Linux/GNU/GPL/OSS.

A year and a half ago, SCO was a ticking bomb... Now, the bomb has exploded -
the explosion is just a lot slower and more wide-spread then anyone had
expected. That's probably because [Microsoft] some people didn't think the
explosion was going to be big enough, so the tossed some more $fuel$ on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:58 AM EST
The SCO Group is the the IT industry's House of the Borgias. Frankly, I have
never seen a company that is as dysfunctional from its business environment as
the SCO Group - and I have worked for a few dysfunctional companies.

I struggle to find a single word or phrase in the English languague that
describes a proprietary software development company that is a litigation
company run by a bunch of amoral MBAs for whom lying comes as easily as
breathing; a company which assaults business partners, customers and former
customers using selective and one-sided reading of its contracts and licenses
and grotesque theories as to what the law is as weapons; and a company that
lives parasitically off the Open Source movement, even as it decries it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: RSC on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 04:01 AM EST
I am starting to think that the pump and dump scheme is a more obvious reason
for this type of action.

Please tell me if I am wrong, but what other reason could be given for a long
ongoing group of suits. Delay appears to be their goal and at every turn they
come up with more FUD to hype to the press.

The only other thing I can think of is that MS are paying the SCO execs and
directors to be a sacraficial lamb. Come to think of it, SCO don't even need to
win, just drag it out for as long as possible. They keep feeding money and SCO
continue to delay, Linux gets more and more tarnished, MS gets more and more of
the market. How much do they pay for marketing? I am sure this could be more
valuable than the same money spent on normal publicity. All they have to do is
keep SCO going until the first suit looks like failing, and cut SCO loose to
fall off the planet.

Geez, how did my tinfoil hat suddenly appear on my head?

Any way, tear my arguments apart. I need some humility right about now. :).

RSC.


---
----
An Australian who IS interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: gbl on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 04:02 AM EST
Why would a small company want to fight a number of complex legal actions at the same time? It would normally be an insane thing to do, the burn-rate would be high and there is the danger that you run out of money without successfully completing any of the cases.

But what if someone else is paying for the lawyers?

Imagine the situation where a small company is given, say $100M, and told to spend it protecting their claims. The worst possible outcome is for a legal action to end by being thrown out as being groundless early in the game. The sleeping partner might just act for their money back.

So, it's very important to spend the money as quickly as possible and the best way to do that is to start a number of parallel cases in such a manner that the courts can't force them to be combined.

While the money is flowing from the suger-daddy to the lawyers there is always the chance that some of it will be needed for special payments, fees and bills presented by a brother.

---
If you love some code, set it free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Eblen not quite up-to-date?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 04:31 AM EST
On p.2, he says "SCO against Novell is not a federal court litigation and is proceeding in Utah State Court". Wasn't it removed to Federal Court last month?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: drh on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 04:47 AM EST
SCO has took a big gamble with IBM, and it did not pay
off. Now they are in trouble, and the only way out is
delay. The only way to delay is to file more lawsuits, and
hinge the results on the other cases they have presented.
That way, they can delay case 1 while working case 2.
Lawyers for their opposition will find themselves in a
similar situation, their position against SCO will be much
stronger if one of the other cases comes to a conclusion.
Judges likewise will be looking at the other cases when
formulating decisions. Delay now is inevitable.

The big problem for SCO now is that as soon as one case is
decided (all or in part) the lawyers for all the other
cases will make additional filings based on that, up to
and including dismissal or summary judgement. Within a
week of the first decision, all the cases could be closed.
You will be able to hear the crash around the world.


---
Just another day...

[ Reply to This | # ]

French Groklaw?
Authored by: jobsagoodun on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 07:01 AM EST
Are McD's & McBride going to launch FreedomGroklaw (TM) now?!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 07:06 AM EST
The essence of what Moglen is saying is that SCO is caught in a dilemma of
conflicting interests:

1. drag things on as long as possible, but thereby allowing people under threat
of invoices, audits, lawsuits and other harassment to continue pointing at
pending litigation instead of purchasing licenses;

2. persuade as many companies to purchase licenses as quickly as possible so
they can server as ammunition in its FUD campaign (the end goal as far as we've
been able to deduce it) without having to go to court.

Having just one lawsuit with an ambiguous end would IMHO serve them much better
than a whole lot.

Cheers,


Emile

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 07:26 AM EST
You could allways try http://babelfish.altavista.com allthough translations are
not even close to perfect :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yahoo finance web page bias
Authored by: hal9000 on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 07:38 AM EST
Hi all

I may be imagining this, but do yahoo finance
pages appear to deliberately show SCO as
a bigger and better company than IBM.

Here is a direct quote.

[Begin Quote]
"SCO Group is a software company whose products enable the
development, deployment and management of Linux specialized servers and Internet
access devices that simplify computing."

"IBM makes computers, storage products and software."

-By Todd Goren; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-1351; todd.goren@dowjones.com
[End Quote]

It would appear that IBM don't do much.

All news links appear to show that SCO is a huge
software success story and you should invest
as quickly as you can.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it not the SCO libraries that Autozone are being sued over, not Linux?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:06 AM EST

This, and many other press articles, talk about the Autozone case being about Linux itself, yet I was sure I read here that its about the SCO libraries which Autozone are accused of running on top of Linux without SCO's permission. If this is the case, then a lot of the article doesn't make sense. Autozone are not being sued over copyright infringement in Linux.

This also raises a few other questions:

  • Does the copyright owner have the right to specify how their works are to be enjoyed? Microsoft have not stopped people running Office on top of WINE, though there have been rumblings of discontent. If Autozone paid for the SCO libraries - who's actually to stop them using what they paid for on Linux? Do we come down to the "You should only read this book under natural daylight or a daylight simulating light bulb" type clauses?
  • The article does hint that the whole thing comes down to Autozone making and distributing an "infringing Linux distribution". Could such a distribution be one that contains the SCO libraries? Autozone would be infringing in that case, just as anyone who distributed a copy of Windows on a CDROM along Linux. It would not be Linux itself that is infringing, only the new CDROM. If Autozone made such a distribution for internal use only, having already paid for their SCO libraries, would that be non-infringing. We all back up our Windows install CDs.
  • Autzone of course only have to show that their internal Linux systems do not run the SCO libraries, or that they have a right to run the SCO libraries, and surely the whole thing's off.
  • Lets not forget that the whole "stolen code" thing appears to be based on the suit with IBM. SCO seem to be saying that whats IBM's is theirs, so the infringement is IBM giving away code that IBM wrote themselves to Linux. If that falls down, then the whole thing falls down.

I see Autozone as being as much a red herring as Daimler Chrysler. The press are fooled into thinking its a Linux suit, but its not. Its more like SCO being the playground bully, or the old Mafia, and picking on people it doesn't like with nuisance suits, and threatening others that it can do the same to them.

If they can convince the press that a win over Autozone is a win over Linux then they've done well. If I'm right, and the Autozone suit is about the SCO libraries, then the point should be made clear.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Darl DOSed again (Denied of Speech)
Authored by: belzecue on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:31 AM EST
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18311227

---

IT Confidential: Lawsuits, Legislation, And The Exit Strategy March 8, 2004

By John Soat

... When Darl McBride entered the stage at the Software 2004 conference in San
Francisco last week to speak to the assembled group of developers and vendors,
there was a noticeable exodus by many in the audience. According to some folks
at the show, this was a planned protest against the SCO Group chairman, who is
now suing customers over the use of Linux (see p. 20). McBride didn't seem fazed
by the exit strategy, and went on to speak enthusiastically about the company's
desire and means to protect its intellectual property.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 08:54 AM EST
SCO point is not to sell the licences. As we all know, SCO funding comes from
the 3rd parties, related to MS.
The key quesitons is, why MS is so keen in sponsoring such projects ? I think
the answer is, because of:

1) MS have lost their dominance in embedded and in server market and the
tendency is that their marketplace is constantly decreasing
2) MS new OS version Longhorn is delayed and because of this and the last year's
woldwide virus attacks on MS OS folks have a good motivation to risk and to try
MS OS alternatives like Linux.

And MS is afraid like hell. Steve Balmer names Linux their competitor No1.
Previously MS PR tended to ignore Linux as competitive force.

So the story is what methods MS uses to compete with their competior No1. I hope
that US court will someday find these methods illegal and MS will be fined. And
it will happen at least within 3 years, not 10 years

Ed

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST
All along I've suggested that SCO have no intention of completing the court
cases.

SCO are deep into plan B. The endgame is a bankrupt SCO incapable of continuing
the cases, leaving all the FUD unresolved and inflicting substantial expenses on
all the victims as a bonus. Along the way SCO shareholders and execs cream off a
pump&dump profit for their work and hope to escape any personal liability.

If Microsoft really are the paymasters here that would be the best possible
outcome: 2-3 years of FUD and no resolution at the end of it.

Simply fighting SCO is insufficient, IBM's efforts to drag Canopy (and perhaps
even Microsoft) into their case must succeed, the case cannot be allowed to just
fizzle out. It MUST be resolved or Linux will be permanently damaged.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NEW - SCO violating GPL on their distro
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:25 AM EST
Just went back to

http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux

up until a few days ago at least you could download SCO's Linux distro from here, by giving a blank username and password. Now it won't accept a blank username and password. It won't accept a username of butthead and a password of beavis either, ie, it requires a specific username/password credential pair.

Since the sources in their Linux distro are licensed under the GPL - I downloaded the kernel RPM and checked it a couple of weeks ago - SCO are now out of compliance with the GPL, which requires that the sources be made available for at least three years after distribution of the binaries.

This may open a new front in the war, with the FSF being able to set Moglen on to SCOX, something I think he's more than ready for.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Injunction to suspend licensing
Authored by: moogy on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 09:34 AM EST
"If AutoZone or DaimlerChrysler does not settle quickly,
then SCO's theory of action has a real problem because you
'cannot sell licenses when you are in litigation against
firm A to prove that you own what you are trying to license;
and you are in litigation against firm B for needing a license
and nobody has settled with you and people are saying thatif
you don't own what you are selling then I don't need to buy it.'

Moglen suggests they now have no legal right to license
Linux until this case is settled and they have proved they
have any claim upon Linux, but how can their license
initiative, threats of law suits and promised more and
more cases be stopped?

Can their be an injunction against further sales attempts,
halting sales until they prove a proper claim upon Linux
and a right to force licenses upon those who do not want
to do business with them and do not recognize their claim
of owneership as valid?
1) via state attornies general?
2) via Fed. Dept. of Justice?
3) by AutoZone?
4} by end-users?


---
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 | # ]

My question is this:
Authored by: pyrodave on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:15 AM EST
Is there any possibly way the Supreme Court could intervene in this?

I mean if a company can literally go bankrupt while in litigation over it
supposed intellectual property that company is not going to look like an
attractive acquisition (buyer assumes legal costs WHICH ARE BASED SPECIFICALLY
ON SALE OF THE COMPANY) and the court can't put a case on hold while the lawyers
wait to be paid.

What would be a probably EndGame if the current suits (SCO vs. IBM, Novell vs
SCO, RedHat vs SCO, SCO vs AutoZone, and SCO vs Diamler-Chrysler) are still
going next month and SCO runs completely dry on funds?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parsing the New Lawsuits
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 10:45 AM EST
Good question from the SCOX board @yahoo:
msg #105713
In all of the documents I have reviewed for newSCO's legal proceedings, I don't
recall seeing Mr. Boies's signature (or signature block) on a single one.

Have I overlooked a document? Has anyone seen a document submitted to the courts
with Mr. Boies's signature or signature block on it?

I realize that all of the documents list his firm, but I haven't seen any that
indicate he either prepared the filing or endorsed it.

I don't think he has. I think he knows better. He knows these frivolous lawsuits
will eventually be exposed as frivolous. He knows the lawyers submitting them
will face sanctions and reprimand.

Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT but its about damned time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST
http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/08/0457259.shtml

read and enjoy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are the Feds finally waking up?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST
Heres is a most interesting artice, Analysis: Microsoft, SCO have a lot more explaining to do. It talks about the SEC getting swamped with complains about SCO and MS. Perhaps the dragon is waking up again.

Hers are some of the mentioned violations that SEC may be looking at: 

If and when
this all gets into court and becomes public record one day, the following
allegations may be among those included in the litigation:

    * That Microsoft
used Lindon, Utah-based SCO Group as a puppet to create havoc in the courts
against the open source software movement, which is the most serious current
challenge to the Redmond, Wash., company's longtime stranglehold on the personal
computer software industry;
    * That Microsoft apparently paid for influence
among key software industry analysts;
    * That insider trading was common
among heavily invested people and companies;
    * That conflicts of interest
occurred, in particular one involving a stockbroker/analyst who appeared on a
cable television show and gave a positive recommendation to SCO stock while he
owned a substantial number of SCO shares and stood to profit personally from an
increase in their value.
    * That money was laundered involving two
international banks and several key outside business people with close ties to
both Microsoft and SCO Group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewsForge reports SEC is looking at SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:26 AM EST

Article is here.

h ttp://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/08/0457259.shtml

[ Reply to This | # ]

How about an English Groklaw?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:41 AM EST
Here's part the IBM / Santa Cruz contract posted the other day:

Notwithstanding Section 15.1, IBM shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon the occurrence of a Change of Control of SCO which IBM in its sole discretion determines will substantially and adversely impact the overall purpose of the cooperation set forth by this Agreement and applicable Project Supplements or will create a significant risk or material and adverse exposure of IBM's confidential and/or technical proprietary information (which is subject to, and to the extent of, confidentiality restrictions) ("Information"). For purposes of this Agreement, control shall be deemed to be constituted by rights, contracts or any other means which, either separately or jointly and having regard to the consideration of fact or law involved, confer the possibility of exercising decisive influence (other than by an entity currently exercising such influence or any entity controlled by or controlling such entity) on SCO by:

Forget French and Spanish. We need English.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Car owners can be sued
Authored by: Ares_Man on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:44 AM EST
I'm sure people who drive cars manufactured by DaimlerChrysler are in risk of a
potential lawsuit from SCO. After all, they could not possibly be driving the
quality cars they own if it weren't for SCO's all-powerful IP being used in DC's
Linux machines that manage all the business processes at the plant, given the
"viral" nature of SCO's "IP."

[ Reply to This | # ]

CNN/DowJones Story about
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 11:46 AM EST
Anyone seen this story on CNN Money?
Do you know if they are just interpretting what CA said earlier or is there a new CA statement?
CNN Story Phil M., BYU

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cowboy Darl rides again
Authored by: dodger on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 12:21 PM EST
from
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2436494

McBride has done battle before. He compares his fight with Linux supporters to
when his family caught thieves stealing cattle from their ranch in Utah.

"We brought those guys to justice," he said. "It's very similar
to what we are dealing with here."
-----
Yahoooo cowboy. Go getem Darl. Someon sur cut thru that thar
fence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Parsing the New Lawsuits
    Authored by: irieiam on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 12:41 PM EST
    "Perhaps they have no reason to desire a quick resolution."

    If it's intended or not - A 'Linux Pause' until the next Windows comes out
    sounds like a benefit for MS. The trades and any other cash are just icing.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Shills?
    Authored by: StLawrence on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 12:46 PM EST
    I just looked up the definition of shill:
    "shill (n): a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others."

    We're all sorta assuming that AutoZone and Daimler-Chrysler will mount enthusiastic defenses of the lawsuits, but what if they don't? What if they capitulate loudly, and with great cries of anguish, and settle out-of-court for "an undisclosed sum"? That might motivate other companies to cough up their SCO taxes, quickly, before the Eye of SCO might turn toward them.

    Why would AutoZone and Daimler-Chrysler do such a thing, you might ask? Well, who owns them? Cross-check with who owns SCO, and you might be surprised. Why do you think SCO selected AutoZone and Daimler-Chrysler, anyhow?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Parsing the New Lawsuits
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 01:31 PM EST
    It'd be great to see SCO sue EV1 now - that'd be the end of SCOSource.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Parsing the New Lawsuits
    Authored by: dlharper on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 01:50 PM EST
    I found this on Newsforge, thought it was interesting, to say the least.

    http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/08/0457259.shtml

    Analysis: Microsoft, SCO have a lot more explaining to do
    Monday March 08, 2004 - [ 03:40 PM GMT ]
    Topics: Legal , News and Trends
    By: Chris Preimesberger

    Whether or not Microsoft is secretly bankrolling the SCO Group for more than
    $100 million to attack Linux and the general open source community through
    questionable intellectual property lawsuits, NewsForge has learned that U.S.
    federal regulators may have begun investigating the relationship between the two
    companies -- and may also be looking closely at a number of other people and
    companies connected to them through stock or other business transactions . . .

    (p.s. Bravo, PJ. Don't let those rat bastards off the hook!)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • SEC is active! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 02:43 PM EST
    OT: BBC opinion piece
    Authored by: Rcomian on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 02:45 PM EST
    The BBC has a story from a few days ago by Bill Thompson. His opinion on the situation appears to have swung somewhat from the last one I remember reading, where he basically said that FOSS needs to get its act together. This one's a nice read. Might start reading the others.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Newsforge: Microsoft, SCO have a lot more explaining to do
    Authored by: zapyon on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:04 PM EST

    http://trends.n ewsforge.com/print.pl?sid=04/03/08/0457259

    Regards, zapyon

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Wow! Yahoo / The Street says Microsoft in trouble
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:09 PM EST
    Wow! A sidebar at Yahoo Finance links to The Street article recounting challenges faced by Microsoft in a Linux world. Their stock forecast though, is what's interesting:

    "I think many investors still look at Microsoft as a legitimate core holding in a company that still has reasonable growth ahead of it," Ursillo said. But "at this point in the economic cycle [and] at this phase of Microsoft's life cycle, we don't see it as a way you can materially outperform." (emphasis added)

    The link is here

    Another very surprising comment: "Linux is a "growing reason" for Microsoft's underperformance, said Tony Ursillo, an analyst with Loomis, Sayles & Co., which has significantly pared back its Microsoft holdings to about 250,000 shares..."

    Coming from Yahoo and The Street, that is VERY SURPRISING. In the article they also note the AMR Research comment that refers to Linux as "an immediate threat to Microsoft".

    Probably very disturbing to convicts in Redmond - how will they launder money for SCO if their stock is down? ;-)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Parsing the New Lawsuits
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:10 PM EST
    "Perhaps they have no reason to desire a quick resolution."

    Whatever made you think they did? The SCO executives are out to defame Linux
    (for MS), and make some personal cash. If they happen to destroy SCO in the
    process, so be it.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's answer to Novell's motion to dismiss
    Authored by: mbaehr on Monday, March 08 2004 @ 03:11 PM EST
    ... is up on SCO's website at

    http://www.sco.com/novell/Memorandum_in_Opposition_to_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

    Hope that hasn't been already posted

    [ Reply to This | # ]
    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )     		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
    Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
    News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
    Powered By GeekLog
    Created this page in 0.06 seconds