|
|
| SCO Loses Motion to Dismiss Red Hat Complaint! |
 |
|
Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:00 PM EDT
|
SCO's Motion to Dismiss has been denied in Delaware.
The judge has also stayed any further activity in the Red Hat case until after the IBM case in Utah is resolved, unless things get bogged down there. Both sides have to file a letter every 90 days letting her know how things are progressing in the IBM matter. The judge will lift the stay if things don't hop along in a reasonable fashion in Utah. Considering how long it took for this overworked judge to rule on this motion, I don't see the order as a delay at all. The big news is, SCO lost and, sooner or later, they must face the music with respect to Red Hat's charges. There is no escape now. And if they drag their heels in Utah, it can have consequences not only there but also in Delaware. The court records on Pacer tell the story, with documents to follow tomorrow:
4/6/04 34 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying [8-1] motion to Dismiss; case is
stayed pending resolution of Utah litigation between SCO and
IBM; parties shall each submit a letter every 90 days as to
the status of the Utah litigation; if the Utah litigation is
not proceeding in an orderly and efficient fashion the court
may reconsider the stay ( signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson )
copies to: cnsl. (rd) [Edit date 04/06/04]
4/6/04 -- Per Court's Order of 4/6/04 the following motions are moot:
mooting [30-1] motion To Supplement the Record, mooting
[17-1] motion For Enlargment of Time to Respond to Pltf's
First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for
Production of Documents and Things, mooting [15-1] motion
to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss
(rd)
You can find all the motions that have been mooted on our Legal Docs page, along with the complete record of all the motions and responding documents.
The basic overview is this: Red Hat's Complaint, which is the document SCO tried to dismiss, was answered by SCO with a Motion to Dismiss. Then Red Hat amended its brief. This was followed by a series of motions, which are the ones the judge has mooted:
For convenience, I am reproducing the Red Hat section from the Legal Docs page here:
Red Hat v SCO
[ back to Top ]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
About time something happened...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
Doesn't this mean Red Hat won't get a resolution until April 2005 (barring SCO
having a complete implosion)? IRC, that's not a good thing even if the judge has
decided there IS a dispute that can be litigated here.
Yes/No/Maybe?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:20 PM EDT |
Sounds to me like SCO lost the battle but won the war (as far as this case
goes).
Being the defendent I am sure SCO is happy for this case to be put on hold.
Cuts the burn rate on legal fees as well.
Chuck
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JustFree on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
This makes sense. The case between SCO Group vs. IBM does relate to Red Hat vs.
SCO Group. I do not understand the complex legal reasons why, but "this may
be the first nail in the SCO coffin."
---
as in free speech get it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
According to records at tuxrocks.com, the following is a brief description of
what was declared moot:
30 - MOTION by Red Hat Inc. with Proposed Order To Supplement the Record Answer
Brief due 2/25/04 re: [30-1] motion (ft) [Entry date 02/12/04]
17 - MOTION by SCO Group Inc. For Enlargment of Time to Respond to Pltf's First
Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents and Things
Answer Brief due 10/22/03 re: [17-1] motion (ft) [Entry date 10/09/03] (October
8, 2003)
15 - MOTION by SCO Group Inc. to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to
Dismiss Answer Brief due 10/16/03 re: [15-1] motion (ft) (October 2, 2003) [
text ]
... and then of course, the motion to dismiss is ...
8 - MOTION by SCO Group Inc. with Proposed Order to Dismiss. Answer Brief due
9/29/03 re: [8-1] motion (rd)[Entry date 09/16/03] (September 15, 2003)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sphealey on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:28 PM EDT |
How can the Delaware court do that? The Utah case isn't before it - how can it
base a decision on a case of which it should have no legal notice? PJ?
sPh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
| In my opinion, this is entirely good news.
As we've seen in the filings for
the last year (or more), while RedHat, Novell, etc., might have engaged very
competent legal representation, nobody is positioned better to defend IP
(however poorly defined) claims than IBM.
[If IBM claimed to have a prior
claim on the Roman numeral system, I don't think I'd bet against them winning in
court.]
I dimly recall that the very design of the Hollerith card (the
"punch" or "computer" card, as PJ and the other youngsters may call it) was
subject to extensive challenges, which IBM eventually won, of course.
The
Delaware court is taking a prudent course of deferring to the Utah Court where
the main action is occurring. Now that IBM has moved that the SCO case be
dismissed with prejiduce (can't be refiled in the future), we might be moving
into the end-game.
---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
If the case is stayed, Red Hat gets no resolution for years. I wonder if they
can move to enjoin SCO from making damaging claims while the action is pending.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
Yet another reason to vote for or again' sitting judges who contemplate
procrastination as an appropriate judicial prerogative.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: icebarron on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
Tisk, Tisk, patience my friends as the saying goes you ain't seen
nothing yet...The bomb will be dropped on sco in very short order...just call it
a hunch...
I love it when the wheels do start grinding...
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:37 PM EDT |
Why is this case on hold pending the outcome of the IBM case? Surely the IBM
case is about contracts, which really have little impact on RedHat's claims.
SCO has publicly stated that they don't own the code that IBM has distributed,
so why does it impact the RedHat case?
Perhaps the judge is merely trying to clear her desk?
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mrsam on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:46 PM EDT |
| [mooting] ... [30-1] motion To Supplement the Record
This is Red
Hat moving to add all of SCOX's recent blather to the lawsuit. I hope this
doesn't mean that Red Hat cannot ammend their lawsuit to include new SCOX FUD.
When this case gets moving again Red Hat should be able to ammend their
pleadings and bring them up to date.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
Curious to know what Robinson will think if, say, Lehman Brothers is sued. How
many Red Hat customers have to be sued before the case gets taken off hold?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: odysseus on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
50/50 mix of good and bad: Dismissal=Good, Stay=Bad.
Basically, the judge has said, yeah, Red Hat may have a case, but I can't be
bothered to look at it, so I'll file it and use the IBM case as an excuse to
cover my a***.
RH were looking for relief from ongoing damage to their business, and all the
judge can say is wait another couple of years??? Stinks, big time.
John.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Please cut the judge some slack - Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:11 PM EDT
- OK, let's think about this a moment. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:29 PM EDT
- OK, let's think about this a moment. - Authored by: resst on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:48 PM EDT
- OK, let's think about this a moment. - Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:50 PM EDT
- Then... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:57 PM EDT
- Nope. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 12:13 AM EDT
- Possibilities. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 12:26 AM EDT
- Nope. - Authored by: Thomas An. on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 02:46 AM EDT
- OK, let's think about this a moment. - Authored by: sphealey on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- OK, let's think about this a moment. - Authored by: Larry West on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 10:25 PM EDT
- SCOG FUD non-existant since February - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 12:07 AM EDT
- hey, um... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- SCO Loses Motion to Dismiss Red Hat Complaint! - Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
IANAL, but I have been reading Groklaw for almost a year now.
The Federal court system is overloaded. It seems to be a general principle of
law that the court system tries to be efficient, believe it or not. Thus,
federal courts apparently try to avoid duplication of effort. When IBM filed
their second ammended counterclaims, they added requests for declaratory
judgements that are substantially similar to the requests in the RedHat suit. Up
until that point, the Delaware case was different from the Utah case. With the
ammended counterclaim, the Utah case becomes a superset of the Delaware case, so
the Delaware judge suspended the Delaware case for reasons of efficiency.
I do not know if RedHat could now request that the cases be "joined."
would this in fact be useful given that SCOG's true agenda is to prolong the
case as much as possible?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eggplant37 on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:58 PM EDT |
This is a truly beautiful thing. I'm sad that it all hinges on the outcome of
IBM but at least we know that the judge believes RedHat has a legal leg to stand
on.
Rich[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:59 PM EDT |
since both sides have to file every 90 days ,if scox continues the delaying
tactics then redhat can tell the judge what is happening there
hehehehe
this is still good for redhat
they didnt get it dismissed
---
br3n
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
"sco's proof of one million lines of code are just as believable as the
raelians proof of the cloned baby"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 10:59 PM EDT |
"...sooner or later, they must face the music with respect to Red Hat's
charges."
It seemd quite optimistic to assume there will be anything left of SCO after
they burn through their cash paying their lawyers in multiple lawsuits, and if
they have to pay damages to IBM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
"4/6/04 34 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying [8-1] motion to Dismiss; case
is stayed pending resolution of Utah litigation between SCO and IBM; parties
shall each submit a letter every 90 days as to the status of the Utah
litigation; if the Utah litigation is not proceeding in an orderly and
efficient fashion the court may reconsider the stay ( signed by Judge Sue L.
Robinson ) copies to: cnsl. (rd) [Edit date 04/06/04]"
This
is, perhaps, a sign of things to come. I somehow sense that Judge Robinson has
been in contact with the Utah judges, and this may the reason for the RedHat
case stall. The bolded sentence conveys to me that she has some insider
knowledge about the CALDvsIBM case. Why would she go through all the effort of
addressing the RedHat case when she knows Utah will throw out the
case?
Which begs the question, can other judges know about rulings
ahead of the public, or can they get "hints" from the presiding judge?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
The first count in the Red Hat complaint seeks a
determination of
whether any SCO copyrights are being
infringed by the use and distribution of
Linux. Presumably,
the reason for the order to stay is that this exact
same
issue is now in IBM's countercomplaint.
I think this bodes
well for AutoZone.
Obviously, if Novell's motion to dismiss
succeeds soon, then
that will quickly lead to Judge Hagen saying "sorry SCO,
but
come back if and when you successfully acquire the allegedly
infringed
copyrights". But that probably won't happen
before April 23, when AutoZone
needs to respond with either
a complete answer to SCO's complaint or a motion
to dismiss
or stay the proceedings.
A motion by AutoZone to stay
the case pending resolution of
the IBM case ought to either (1) succeed for the
same reason
the Red Hat case was stayed, or (2) at least get SCO to
retract
the claim (see paragraph 20 of the complaint against
AutoZone) that Linux 2.4
and 2.6 are infringing, and
explicitly narrow the case to just a suit against a
former
customer for violating the licensing terms of some UNIX
libraries that
AutoZone bought from SCO.
Either way, that would spell the end of
SCO's hopes that it
can scare any revenue out of Linux users this
year.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SC on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
| Does this affect the AutoZone case, since they're a RedHat customer? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
This is a great news for scox.
Redhat said: "tell scox to stop making claims that scox can not back up,
those claims are unfairly hurting our business. This sort of thing is the reason
that we laws like the lehman act."
Judge: I don't care, I'm too stupid and lazy to worry about the law. Scox can do
whatever scox wants, doesn't matter to me if it's legal or not.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, April 06 2004 @ 11:39 PM EDT |
The bad news for SCOG is that SCOG has lost another court ruling.
The good news is that SCOG has gotten another delay.
The bad news is that SCOG has only 11 days until the next deadline in the IBM
case.
The good news is that SCOG can delay the trial to file briefs after turning in
the discovery response.
The bad news is that new deadlines are already scheduled that will result in
rulings within another two months, rulings which are almost certain to be
devastating to SCOG.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jack Hughes on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 01:53 AM EDT |
| I'm confused.
I thought Red Hat were saying: "Stop this company from casting
aspersions upon our business, threatening our customers with their unfounded
allegations. We must be given immediate relief".
The judge has now said "no
relief for you - wait until another lengthy case has finished".
SCO can now
say "phew! that's a problem we don't have to worry about now. If we win against
IBM in a few years time then this won't matter; if we lose against IBM in a few
years time, it won't matter either, 'cos you can only be dead once. But it means
we can carry on undermining Linux and the GPL, doing the evil work for our
sponsors, and enriching ourselves along the way for another few years. Hurray!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 02:10 AM EDT |
Hi,
fix me if i'm wrong, but I thought the whole idea of a
declaratory judgement was to have a fast decision,
preventing possible further damages? And leave the
gory details to a possible further case? (Roughly
comparable to the german "Einstweilige Verfügung", which
is what SCO has received in germany?)
If so, how can the judge decide to wait for another case?
I also tend to see this as a victory for SCO: There is
still nothing that prevents them to spread their FUD.
Jochen Wiedmann
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 02:12 AM EDT |
Is discovery in the Red Hat case delayed as well?
Does it start now (because SCO have been refusing to do discovery in this case
until their motion to dismiss was ruled on)
Or does discovery start only after the IBM case is resolved.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 02:23 AM EDT |
"SCO's Motion to Dismiss has been denied in Delaware"
On one hand, this means that SCOG has a RH sword hanging over its head during
the IBM litigation. On the other hand, SCOG can claim partial victory because
SCOG wanted the RH case delayed until the IBM trial is over: SCOG is getting a
delay, but not the kind of extensive delay that it wanted. SCOG's potential
crowing notwhistanding, I reluctantly understand Judge Robinson's desire in the
higher interest of justice to render decisiona that are consistent with Judge
Kimball's. I can't say that judge Robinson's professional inefficiency in the RH
case has endeared her to me, however.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nealywilly on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 04:09 AM EDT |
The next logical move for Red Hat is to file a motion to bifurcate their case
into Utah dispositive and Delaware dispositive parts. They should also
concurrently file a motion asking for leave to amend their complaints, if the
birucation is granted, to separate the copyright-related aspects of some of
their counts from the non-copyright-related aspects.
This would leave the DE case to be decided on facts, such as transcripts of
SCO's own words in press releases, speeches and interviews plus letters and
affidavits from customers and potential customers. Then everything that is not
a disputable fact and be used in support of one or more summary judgements.
Red Hat's case could be easily split into a case that can "wait" for
IBM v. SCO to be decided in Utah (Counts I, III-copyright, IV-copyright,
V-copyright, VI, and VII-copyright) and a case that can still proceed in
Delaware (Counts II, III-non-copyright, IV-non-copyright, V-non-copyright and
VII-non-copyright).
COUNT:
(RATIONALE)
Count I: For Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of Copyrights
(Outcome of IBM v. SCO in UT is most obviously dispositive to this count)
Count II: For Declaratory Judgement of No Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
(Red Hat can file a Motion for Summary Judgement on this Count ASAP)
Count III: False Advertising in Violation of ... the Lanham Act
(To the extent that Red Hat's substantiation of this claim does not involve
SCO's copyright claims, this count can be continued in DE)
Count IV: Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of ...
(To the extent that Red Hat's substantiation of this claim does not involve
SCO's copyright claims, this count can be continued in DE)
Count V: Unfair Competition
(To the extent that Red Hat's substantiation of this claim does not involve
SCO's copyright claims, this count can be continued in DE)
Count VI: Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Opportunities
(I think this may need to be decided in UT because it's based on the letters,
which involve SCO's copyright claims. To the extent that Red Hat's
substantiation of this claim does not involve SCO's copyright claims, this count
can be continued in DE)
Count VII: Trade Libel and Disparagement
(To the extent that Red Hat's substantiation of this claim does not involve
SCO's copyright claims, this count can be continued in DE)
nw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 05:06 AM EDT |
Since I am not a English native speaker I had to look up "mooted" and
my dictionary says: "Subject, or open, to argument or discussion;
undecided; debatable; mooted.".
From the discussion I get the feeling that mooted actually means denied or
thrown out. But now I am not sure whether or not these issues can come back at a
later point.
Is there a specific legal meaning to the word?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 06:20 AM EDT |
"if the Utah litigation is not proceeding in an orderly and
efficient fashion the court may
reconsider the
stay"
Translation: I'm watching how you behave in Utah, and
if you don't comport yourself properly there, you are
grounded.
---
Just my 0.02€ contribution to the
floccinaucinihilipilification of SCO. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 07:53 AM EDT |
| Someone pinch me, no really! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 08:07 AM EDT |
Beer company A falsely declared that employees at beer company B are urinating
in company B's product. Should the legal system just sit there and let company A
continue to make such false claims?
Couldn't the judge have told scox to stop claiming that scox has grounds to sue
end users until the case is settled?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 09:34 AM EDT |
Please excuse my IANAL-ignorance--
Could RedHat seek a declaratory judgment like IBM's? That would seem to
mitigate their customers' concerns, but allow the rest of the suit to be delayed
until IBM wins =)
Thanks, and rock on PJ!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
Clueless piece on:- http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3336781
Perhaps PJ could set a competition, asking how many errors we can spot in any
given piece?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: walth on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
IANAL, but I don't see what this is other than a delaying tactic BY THE JUDGE.
RedHat said "Make them stop!"
TSG said "We aren't doing anything wrong, ignore them."
The judge said "TSG, I am not going to ignore RedHat, but also, RedHat, I
am not going to make TSG stop."
Looks to me like the judge has put the whole case on hold, making the motions
for more time moot.
TSG had their dismissal motion denied **************** TSG - , RedHat +
The request for declarative Judgement is on hold ******* TSG + , RedHat -
The judge doesn't have to deal with this for 90 days ***** Judge + , justice -
Total TSG 0, RedHat 0, Judge wins, justice loses[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
With everything seeming to go against SCO, does anyone know why the SCO stock
price has rebounded?
prteacher
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
If things go as they should with the IBM action, SCO
will be left as a
company of net negative net worth, since
they will owe more than they have to
IBM. With RedHat's
case left to be ajudicated, it seems to me that they
will
simply be left on the short end of the money (damages)
stick.
I'm
not particularly fond of RedHat (they seem every bit as
much of a power
broker/money grubber as MS is), and I could care
less about RedHat in
particular. But I think they lose here.
RedHat's loss seems very much
mitigated by the fact that there
does not seem to be much damage to RedHat to
begin with, since
the adoption of Linux seems to have been accelerated more than
it
was slowed by the SCO case.
Wally Bass [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: KenWilson on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
From the news.com article regarding the SCO/Red Hat ruling:
The IBM
case is scheduled to go to trial April 11, 2005. However, SCO on Monday asked
that the trial be pushed back to Sept. 15, 2005.
SCO attorneys argued
in a motion that they have 10 IBM counterclaims to reckon with, that the
evidence discovery process was delayed for months, and that "IBM's untimely
responses to discovery have hindered orderly prosecution of the
case."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
I only have one thing to say to all of you SCO haters.... Nothing comes free!!!!
In a country where capitalism rules in the end capitalism will (has) changed the
open source model. SCO is the first of many to claim stolen IP. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
The Link for SCO's motion for enlargement of time to respond to plaintiff's
first set of interrogatories points to SCO's motion to stay discovery pending
motion to dismiss. Both links bring up the same document.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: garbage on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
Imagining for a moment that SCOX is a ligitimately
aggrieved party then you would also assume that they would
be seeking a just decision in a timely fashion & you would
see this decision by judge Robinson as a blow to SCOX.
But the public track record of SCOX has been to delay at
every opportunity & to maximise PR against it's perceived
opponents.
So, it seems this decision whilst made for correct
administrative reasons, does no real harm to SCOX &
potentially does harm to Redhat.
The only positive I see is that recipients of SCOX lawsuit
threat letters may feel a less pressed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2004 @ 11:13 PM EDT |
Titles in the News to-morrow:
Red Had Complain has been put on hold in Delaware.
The judge has stayed any further activity in the Red Hat case against SCO.
This seems to indicate that the Red Hat case has no merit...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 07:29 AM EDT |
Why do I feel that way?
check out this story at
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1817&e=7&u=/zd/2004
0407/tc_zd/123817&sid=96120751
nevrmind that we're in the right, it's jury trial in Mormon country, the lawyer
is David (i'm in it for the payday) Boises , the jury will be a collection of
confused seniors, at best we can hope for a mistrial, we're doomed. Unless SCO
Group is bought off by IBM or Novell, rubbed out by extremist L. supporters
(making us users look even worse) or they lose nerve or have a change of
heart(yeah, as if) we're doomed! It's gonna be open season for the next five
years on Open Source and Free Software by anyone who can afford the best lawyers
and find the primo (sympathetic0 venue to hold court.
Meanwhile M$FT is doing the old embrace act by releasing open source Wix kit as
a way to ensnare Open source developers into its web.
Doomed I tells ya. Doomed ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
The judge seems to be making an arguably good call on the derivative connection
between the two cases... - the Red Hat case being the derivative case of the
SCO/IBM case!
IBM are the original masters at inventing FUD campaigns to damage competitive
products - so let's see how they fare first in arguing against their own 'modus
operandi'.
These two cases are loaded with IRONIES...
IBM is the historical leader among computing companies (including AT&T
Microsoft and now SCO) who have insisted and argued all along (reread the fine
print) that ALL profits and benefits from ALL DERIVATIVE works that have used
ANY of their resources are theirs to own for the taking, plundering and
exploitation.
NOW they are being called upon to argue in court that their own practice is an
UNFAIR practice by a little company that owns some IP that IBM probably thought
they had squashed when it was almost lost in AT&T's archives...
Our GNU/Linux community is kind of expecting IBM to PROTECT and respect freedoms
and even IP within GNU/Linux from what has been termed the "evil"
people at SCO is perhaps heaping irony upon irony. How can we reasonably
expect IBM to protect anything apart from their 'freedom' (alongwith their
former subcontracters Microsoft) to act just as they jolly well please since IBM
'taught' (by example at least) ALL the software companies that MUCH MUCH more
money was to be made by employing armies of lawyers to argue the case of
derivative works ownership than they could by fostering and retaining a
community of coders...?
[Perhaps it is like asking Ghengis Khan to protect our democratic freedoms with
his marauding hordes.]
Now IBM are being asked to argue the opposite side of their philosophical
position to defend themselves... ironic indeed.
Monopolies (be they Microsoft IBM or SCO) controlling ANY market destroy
capitalistic democracies!
Strong effective competition is what we all need to defend capitalism and
democracies!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
