|
|
| Red Hat Asks Judge in DE to Reconsider the Stay |
 |
|
Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 09:27 PM EDT
|
What a time we are having! Now Red Hat steps up and today files a motion asking Judge Sue Robinson to reconsider her stay on that case, saying it was "inappropriate", according to Stephen Shankland: "Red Hat's lawyers argued on Tuesday that the basis of the case between SCO and IBM is different from that in its suit: 'The Utah case...fundamentally concerns the contractual relationship between IBM and SCO, whereas the Delaware action concerns the damage SCO has done and is continuing to do to Red Hat,' the motion said. "In addition, the Linux company's lawyers argued that Red Hat is suffering injustice as a result of the hold. 'Staying this suit leaves SCO open to pursue the very activities that necessitated Red Hat's complaint in the first instance--a campaign against Linux...to force Red Hat's customers to enter into licenses to use open-source code that SCO did not even develop,' the Red Hat motion said." Here are Red Hat's Motion and the Memorandum in Support. Red Hat points out that the judge decided on a stay on her own initiative, without Red Hat being given the opportunity to address the matter. It points out that the issues in Utah are not identical with the issues in Delaware, and that there are new developments that the judge needs to be aware of, namely new lawsuits, and that it would be a manifest injustice to allow SCO to file lawsuits against Red Hat customers during a stay, the very harm that Red Hat's action was asking be prevented. They request that there be a lifting of the stay or in the alternative that the court "modify the order to enjoin SCO from threatening or initiating additional lawsuits against Red Hat or its customers based on alleged copyright infringement through use of Linux until the stay is lifted."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 09:39 PM EDT |
Wouldn't they be better off to simply ask for an interim injunction in the case?
---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and
bringing it to life..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
As has been mentioned in the past, I'm not sure RedHat will be able to show that
their business, in some provable way, is being hurt. Yes, their customers may
be getting threatening letters, but so far they are just threats. Yes, this
goes to the point of RedHat's suit, but I don't think it'll be enough to
convince the judge that something has to be done right now. I'd LIKE something
to be done now, I just don't think it'll happen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Naturally I agree with RedHat, but... - Authored by: jtiner on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- Naturally I agree with RedHat, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 10:05 PM EDT
- I Reverse My Opinion... - Authored by: chrisbrown on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 11:00 PM EDT
- Naturally I agree with RedHat, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 11:57 PM EDT
- Naturally I agree with RedHat, but... - Authored by: LionKuntz on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 01:41 AM EDT
- Naturally I agree with RedHat, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 11:02 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 10:20 PM EDT |
Toronto Maple Leafs #1.....Groklaw too ;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
cnet.com doesn't help the linux community. As it only allows windows and Mac
shareware but not Linux programs for downloading.What gives with download.com?
Hello? Any comments? Isn't there a pervasive foot dragging on the part of major
shareware, freeware sites particularly download.com? Any comments?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MarkS on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
Considering the glacial pace of the DE courts and the accelerating pace of SCO's
financial demise, I expect this motion will be moot long before the judge rules
on it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 11:26 PM EDT |
I don't understand why Red Hat did not specifically mention that SCO's threats
against end users have focused on header files (the ABI stuff) that have never
been brought up in connection with the IBM case? SCO has never implicated IBM
in that, and that is the only specific stuff SCO pointed to in the letters to
end users. It seems clear that the IBM case will not resolve the ABI issue?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tizan on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 11:28 PM EDT |
I think there is a principle of justice where people have to see that justice is
being done.
So that somebody think twice before re-trying the same unjust thing. And those
who have suffered get some compensation (if one can).
Linux and the Open Source have suffered in the last year..just because somebody
thought there was a fast buck to make at OSS community cost.
We need to see somebody pay some fines or have jail time here in the name of
justice. Bankruptcy cannot and should come to the rescue of a thief !
---
tizan: Knowledge is shared[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Justice - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Justice - Authored by: PM on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 12:15 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 11:50 PM EDT |
When SCO says that Red Hat is wrong and that SCO v. IBM will resolve all the
issues, I hope (regardless of whether that's actually true) that Red Hat quotes
in its reply brief Q17 from SCO's own IP
FAQ:
How can SCO expect me to purchase a license when its
case with IBM hasn’t been resolved yet? What if SCO loses its case against IBM?
Will it reimburse Linux customers who purchased a SCO IP License?
Some
Linux users have the misunderstanding that the SCO IP License hinges on the
outcome of the SCO vs. IBM case. If that case were completely removed, Linux end
users would still need to purchase a license from SCO to use the SCO IP found in
Linux. The IBM case surrounds misuse of derivative works of SCO UNIX. It does
not change the fact that line-by-line SCO IP code is found in Linux. The copied
code includes copyrighted headers and other proprietary UNIX source
code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Tuesday, April 20 2004 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
| Please put links and off-topic items in this thread. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 12:14 AM EDT |
I clicked on the link to the referenced article about RedHat and this annoying
Microsoft Advertisement was placed in plain view that asked, "Can Linux deliver
lower TCO?"
Then it flashes this pic of a 7-11 sign that quotes their
corporate CIO, Keith Morrow, as saying, "... the TCO for the Windows Server
system approach is about was about 20% less expensive than Linux."
For
those not familiar, 7-11 is a nation-wide 24-hour convenience store that
specializes in pushing the most popular junk food in the US, and more. Want
donuts at 3:30a.m.? How about a newspaper and 3-day old pre-packaged
sandwiches? A half-gallon sized Coca-cola and Snickers? 7-11 is your
place!
After reading the advertisement, I decided I am now going out of
my way to avoid one of my favorite treats - a Coca-Cola Slurpee. If they choose to assist
in the shameless plugging of Microsoft, I can assist in not adding to their
annual Slurpee sales tally.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 12:20 AM EDT |
If Novell wasn't very ethical, couldn't they say that they released all Unix
SYSV code under the GPL while they were the copyright owners? Wouldn't that
mean they were free to give it away and distribute it to anyone under the GPL
and those people could do the same? They would have to make up some evidence of
that, like that they gave it to one person in Hungary way back then and he's
been making the contributions to Linux under the GPL license they gave him...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 12:34 AM EDT |
I thought download.com was a pay per download site. Since linux software is
free, there is no money to pay these fees, nor would anyone want to pay money to
put something on that site.
For example, "putty" a windows program for SSH sessions, isnt on
download.comm, even though it's one of the most useful windows utilities ever.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 12:56 AM EDT |
Red Hat is the best...
However, to stop the SCO License until the Stay is lifted maybe fair, BUT - does
it go far enough?
I would think that SCO should NOT be able to advertise or FUD about ONE LICENSE
until the cases are over, and the cases are really over (after appeals), then as
well after any, if any, infringing code is tackled by the kernel crew, AND then
SCO still should not be able to go after users while the users migrate their
installs over to any new, if needed, kernel that has had any, if any, SCO
claimed code found to be there.
Since all the LINUX experts say that there is no code... then, this migration
phase for users will not be a long time for SCO to wait to offer a license that
truely is needed by those who exist in a fictional, and most surreal world.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 01:24 AM EDT |
Wasn't there supposed to be a SCO shareholder's meeting on Tuesday, April 20th?
Anyone know if it took place, or was postponed (or moved to South America)? I'm
just curious, as there has been no mention of it that I can find.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 02:48 AM EDT |
ahm, im betting that a good 50% of your readers were as confused about this
title as I was.
"What?! Redhat sued SCO in Germany!?"
As many people will know DE to be the two letter standard designation for
Germany as will recognize it to be the US two letter state designation for
Delaware.
something to keep in mind when you're publishing to an inter(net|national)
audience.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 03:22 AM EDT |
I was about to write a post citing this very question
from the SCO FAQ. I really do not understand why
Red Hat did not included such a statement in their
filing. After all, this FAQ is hardly new. This Q17
has been around on SCO's site for months. Really,
I do not understand why Red Hat overlooked it. Any
guess?
NNP
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dan Lewis on Wednesday, April 21 2004 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
"The Utah Action will thus resolve, at most, whether IBM contributed to UNIX
certain LINUX code owned by SCO."
This sentence appears on page 13 of the
memo, page 17 in the pdf. As it reads now, Red Hat says SCO owns Linux and IBM
contributed Linux code to Unix. Later in the paragraph they imply the opposite,
but this is not a good time to confuse the judge! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
