|
DaimlerChrysler Memo in Support of its Motion to Strike - as text |
|
Monday, July 19 2004 @ 07:39 PM EDT
|
Here's DaimlerChrysler's MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF
WILLIAM BRODERICK as text. Poor Mr. Broderick. He will be hiding in the men's room from embarrassment, I fear, after reading DC mockingly list all the statements he couldn't possibly have personal knowledge of that he claimed to have knowledge of. For example, would you not blush to read this, if you were he? "Mr. Broderick does not (and could not) have personal knowledge about the purpose, interpretation, negotiation, or course of performance of an agreement executed by two entities with which he has never been affiliated, 14 years before he assumed the position that he contends afforded him personal knowledge." I'm sure there will be a good deal of ribbing of the unfortunate Mr. Broderick, led to the slaughter by SCO's attorneys, who probably do know the rules regarding affidavits, being in the legal field and all. Should we not expect that they know better than to have him assert first-hand knowledge going back to 1988, before nowSCO was even in existence, SCO's anniversary bash's theme notwithstanding, when the affidavit itself notes that Mr. Broderick began working for SCO only in 2001? And if they know better, what is the purpose of such an affidavit? Hoping no one will notice? Sheer desperation? Sloppiness? It certainly can't be to influence the judge, who also knows a few rules about affidavits, one assumes. If all the judges look as closely at what SCO's attorneys put before them as DC's lawyers looked at this affidavit, I think the end is near for the very deserving SCO Group.
*****************************
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
_______________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION,
Defendant.
________________________
Civil Action No. 04-056587-CKB
Honorable Rae Lee Chabot
_______________________
Joel H. Serlin (P20224)
Barry M. Rosenbaum (P26487)
SEYBURN, KAHN, GINN, BESS AND SERLIN, P.C.
Attorneys for SCO
[address, phone]
James P. Feeney (P13335)
Thomas S. Bishoff (P53753)
Stephen L. Tupper (P53918)
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
Attorneys for DaimlerChrysler Corporation
[address, phone]
_________________________________
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF
WILLIAM BRODERICK
_________________________________
Of counsel:
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
Mark G. Matuschak
Michelle D. Miller
[address, phone]
Robin L. Alperstein
[address, phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
______________________________
Defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation ("DCC") submits this memorandum in support its Motion to Strike Certain Paragraphs of the Affidavit of William Broderick ("Broderick Affidavit") from the record. The Broderick Affidavit, which the SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") submitted in support of its Memorandum of Law in Opposition to DaimlerChrysler Corporation's Motion for Summary Disposition ("SCO Mem."), fails to comply with and is incompetence as evidence under Michigan law. It is clear from the face of the Affidavit that Mr. Broderick lacks personal knowledge about at least Paragraphs 8, 10-26, 28, 35, 44-45, 56-57, 59, and 62-65 of the Affidavit. As a result, these paragraphs do not present competent evidence capable of raising a genuine issue of disputed material fact for trial.
ARGUMENT
I. Legal Standard.
The Michigan Court Rules provide that an affidavit offered in opposition to a motion for summary disposition under MCR (C)(10) "shall only be considered to the extent that the content or substance would be admissible as evidence to establish or deny the grounds stated in the motion." MCR 2.116(G)(6); see also Veenstra v Washtenaw Country Club, 466 Mich 166, 163; 645 NW2d 643 (2002)(the existence of a disputed fact must be established by admissible evidence); Reinhold Group, Inc v Dep't of Treasury, No 248025, 2004 WL 790438, at *3 (Mich App, Apr 13, 2004)(attached as Exhibit A)(same, citing MCR 2.116(G)(6)). To be admissible, an affidavit submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary disposition must affirmatively show that the affiant, if sworn as a witness, could testify competently to the facts stated in the affidavit. See Reinhold Group, 2004 WL 790438, at *3 (citing MCR 2.119(B)(1)); Regents of the Univ of Mich v State Farm Mut Ins Co, 250 Mich App 719, 728; 650 NW2d 129 (2002). Competence requires that the statements attested to be within the personal knowledge of the affiant. See MCR 2.119(B); MRE 602.
II. The Court Should Strike Paragraphs 8, 10-26, 28, 35, 44-45, 56-57, 59, and 62-65 of the Broderick Affidavit as Incompetent.
SCO submitted the Broderick Affidavit for the purpose of attempting to identify a genuine issue of disputed material fact for trial. (See SCO Mem at p 4.) However, the Broderick Affidavit does not meet the minimum threshold requirement for admissibility under Michigan law. Indeed, not only does it fail to "affirmatively show" that Mr. Broderick could testify competently to the facts stated therein, it demonstrates the contrary, namely, Mr. Broderick cannot testify competently to Paragraphs 8, 10-26, 28, 35, 44-45, 56-57, 59, and 62-65 because he lacks personal knowledge of the statements contained therein. See Tugender v Henry Ford Health Sys, Inc, No 225554, 2002 WL 433352, at *1 (Mich App Mar 19, 2002)(the affidavit must be based on personal knowledge, stating, with particularity, the facts admissible as evidence that establish or deny the grounds stated in the motion)(citing MCR 2.119(B)(1)(a) and (b))(attached as Exhibit B); see also McDonald v Vaughn, No 244687, 2004 WL 1103926, at *2 (Mich App May 18, 2004)(affirming finding that plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact, in part, because affidavit was not based on personal knowledge)(attached as Exhibit C); Faraj v Hadous, No 213144, 2000 WL 33418843, at *2 (Mich App June 13, 2000)(affirming summary judgment granted in defendant's favor and finding that mere opinions are insufficient to show that a factual dispute exists)(attached as Exhibit D); Sanit Air, Inc v Safety King, Inc., No 203852, 1999 WL 33409645, at *1 (Mich App Nov 30, 1999)(finding that affidavits not made on personal knowledge were insufficient to oppose the defendant's motion foe summary disposition)(attached as Exhibit E).
As a result, the Court should strike Paragraphs 8, 10-26, 28, 35, 44-45, 56-57 59, and 62-65 of the Broderick Affidavit and find that SCO has failed to meet its burden under MCR 2.119(B)(1) and 2.116(G)(6) of showing by evidentiary materials that a genuine issue of disputed material fact exists. See Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 455; 597 NW2d 28 (1999).
A. Paragraphs 8, 10-24, 35, 44-45, 56-57 and 59 Regarding the Purpose, Interpretation and Course of Performance of the License Agreement are Not Within Mr. Broderick's Personal Knowledge.
Though Mr. Broderick claims that he submitted the Affidavit "based on my personal knowledge" and that if sworn as a witness could "testify competently to the facts stated herein" (Broderick Aff ¶1), his statement that he has been employed by SCO as Director of Software Licensing since May 2001 shows the contrary. (See Broderick Aff ¶ ¶1-2.) SCO claims to be the successor-in-interest to the License Agreement, a document signed in 1988 by DCC's predecessor, Chrysler Motors Corporation, and AT&T. (Id. ¶8.) Mr. Broderick does not (and could not) have personal knowledge about the purpose, interpretation, negotiation, or course of performance of an agreement executed by two entities with which he has never been affiliated, 14 years before he assumed the position that he contends afforded him personal knowledge. (See id. ¶2.) The Broderick Affidavit contains no evidence that even suggests that Mr. Broderick could have gleaned such knowledge; it asserts merely that SCO "presently owns all right, title, and interest in and to UNIX and all related license rights."1 (Id. ¶6.) It does not indicate a date by which SCO purports to have assumed such rights, and does not purport to evidence any interaction whatsoever between SCO, as purported successor-in-interest to AT&T, and DCC, prior to December 18, 2003. Likewise, Mr. Broderick's efforts to characterize or otherwise interpret the License Agreement, which in any event speaks for itself, are not based on his personal knowledge.
Paragraphs 8, 10-24, 35, 44-45, 56-57 and 59 of the Broderick Affidavit purport to interpret the License Agreement by characterizing its requirements, and the purpose of those requirements, to support SCO's interpretation of the License Agreement. However, the purpose of contract interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the parties, Greenfield v Philles Records, Inc, 98 NY2d 562, 569; 780 NE2d 166 (2002), a matter outside Mr. Broderick's personal knowledge. For example, Paragraph 19 purports to explain why DCC "agreed to provide certified assurances with the Agreement to SCO," contending that that purpose was to "monitor compliance with the terms of the License Agreement." (Broderick Aff ¶19.) Paragraphs 10-24 purport to interpret the License Agreement by stating SCO's view of what the contract provides (e.g., id. ¶ ¶10-14, 22), what DCC did or "agreed to" do under that Agreement (e.g., id. ¶ ¶14-19), and what the Agreement requires (e.g. id. ¶ ¶ 20-21, 23-24). Mr. Broderick has no personal knowledge of why DCC's predecessor agreed to any provision of the License Agreement, or what any provision of the License Agreement was meant to accomplish. (See id. ¶ ¶ 1-2.)
Mr. Broderick likewise has no personal knowledge regarding the intent of AT&T and DCC's predecessor when they entered into the License Agreement. Mr. Broderick avers no facts to suggest he has any knowledge of the parties' course of performance after they executed the License Agreement. The only fact Mr. Broderick does allege that speaks to course of performance shows that there has been none with respect to SCO and DCC. (See Broderick Aff ¶ ¶ 2-3, 31.) Thus, rather than "show affirmatively" that that Mr. Broderick has personal knowledge of the parties' intent, the Broderick Affidavit conclusively demonstrates that there is no foundation for his testimony regarding the interpretation of the License Agreement or the purpose of any of its provisions. As a result, the Court should strike Paragraphs 8, 10-24, 35, 44-45, 56-57 and 59 of the Broderick Affidavit and conclude that the Affidavit fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
B. Paragraphs 19, 25-26, 28, 62-65 Regarding DCC's Decisions, Actions, Reasons for Acting, and Knowledge are Not Within Mr. Broderick's Personal Knowledge.
Paragraphs 19, 25-26, 28, and 62-65 of the Broderick Affidavit are also inadmissible evidence due to Mr. Broderick's lack of personal knowledge. In these paragraphs, Mr. Broderick makes statements about what DCC is doing or has done, and for what purpose, or what DCC has known or been aware of.
- "To monitor compliance with the terms of the License Agreement...Daimler agreed...." (Broderick Aff ¶19 (emphasis added));
- "When Daimler first entered into the license agreement, Daimler...relied on UNIX as the core operating system..." (Id. ¶ 25 (emphasis added))
- "Neither ...Daimler, nor the original parties to the License Agreement could have contemplated...." (Id. ¶ 26)
- "Daimler has utilized Linux since at least October 2002" (Id. ¶28)
- DCC's employees have had access to "and worked on" UNIX source code and technology for over 15 years (Id. ¶ 62);
- "it is my understanding" that "Daimler personnel would have gained a detailed understanding of UNIX..." (Id. ¶ 63);
- DCC personnel "have used that knowledge and expertise to modify UNIX" (Id. ¶ 64); and
- DCC "is now using Linux." (Id. ¶ 65).
Again, not one of these statements is within Mr. Broderick's personal knowledge. By its terms, the phrase "it is my understanding that..." is an admission of lack of personal knowledge. The statements regarding what DCC's predecessor "relied upon" or "contemplated" in 1988 when the License Agreement was executed, as well as those concerning what DCC's employees have known or done, are without any foundation whatsoever. Mr. Broderick cites to no evidence in support of these statements. Nor does he claim ever to have been employed by DCC or have some other means of knowing how DCC functions in any regard. In fact, the Broderick Affidavit purports to evidence no interaction between Mr. Broderick and DCC prior to December 18, 2003, and none after other than SCO's lawsuit. (See Broderick Aff ¶ ¶ 31, 36-37.) Likewise, the Affidavit provides no foundation for Mr. Broderick's claim to know what DCC knew, or why DCC acted in any fashion. Indeed, having had no contact with DCC other than a single letter in December 2003, Mr. Broderick could not possibly have personal knowledge of these statements. Accordingly, they should all be stricken as contrary to MCR 2.119(B)(1), MCR 2.116(G)(6), and the basic principle of evidence that testimony must be competent. (See MCR 602.)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant this Motion and strike Paragraphs 8, 10-26, 28, 35, 44-45, 56-57, 59, and 62-65 of the Broderick Affidavit from the record.
Dated: June 30, 2004
Respectfully Submitted,
______[signature]_________
James P. Feeney (P13335)
Thomas S. Bishoff (P53753)
by [_____signature____] Stephen L. Tupper
1 While immaterial for purposes of this motion or DCC's Motion for Summary Disposition, this statement is itself also inadmissible as a legal conclusion -- a conclusion that is currently being disputed in various lawsuits pending around the country, including by IBM and Novell. See, e.g. The SCO Group, Inc. v International Business Machines Corp, 2:03CV294DAK (D. Utah); The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 2:04CV139DAK (D. Utah).
|
|
Authored by: eckenheimer on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
Post your corrections here
---
You can complain because roses have thorns,
or you can be happy because thorns have roses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brian on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
This is the part I love....
"Though Mr. Broderick claims that he submitted the
Affidavit "based on my personal knowledge" and that if
sworn as a witness could "testify competently to the facts
stated herein" (Broderick Aff ¶1), his statement that he
has been employed by SCO as Director of Software Licensing
since May 2001 shows the contrary. (See Broderick Aff ¶
¶1-2.) SCO claims to be the successor-in-interest to the
License Agreement, a document signed in 1988 by DCC's
predecessor, Chrysler Motors Corporation, and AT&T. (Id.
¶8.) Mr. Broderick does not (and could not) have personal
knowledge about the purpose, interpretation, negotiation,
or course of performance of an agreement executed by two
entities with which he has never been affiliated, 14 years
before he assumed the position that he contends afforded
him personal knowledge. (See id. ¶2.) The Broderick
Affidavit contains no evidence that even suggests that Mr.
Broderick could have gleaned such knowledge; it asserts
merely that SCO "presently owns all right, title, and
interest in and to UNIX and all related license rights."1
(Id. ¶6.) It does not indicate a date by which SCO
purports to have assumed such rights, and does not purport
to evidence any interaction whatsoever between SCO, as
purported successor-in-interest to AT&T, and DCC, prior to
December 18, 2003. Likewise, Mr. Broderick's efforts to
characterize or otherwise interpret the License Agreement,
which in any event speaks for itself, are not based on his
personal knowledge."
Even footnote 1 challenges SCO's ownership of Unix.
Methinks SCO just got the crap smacked out of them!
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SMACK!!!!! - Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- SMACK!!!!! - Authored by: nola on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: MadScientist on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 07:48 AM EDT
- Re 204s Whoa ... old on now ........ - Authored by: oldgreybeard on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: MadScientist on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 12:08 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: oldgreybeard on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 12:17 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: MadScientist on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 12:32 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: vortex on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: Rhys Weatherley on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 06:43 PM EDT
- Re 204s - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- Chain of Title - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 08:40 PM EDT
- SMACK!!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 09:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: brian on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
PJ says....
"And if they know better, what is the purpose of such an
affidavit? Hoping no one will notice? Sheer desperation?
Sloppiness? It certainly can't be to influence the judge,
who also knows a few rules about affidavits, one assumes."
The answer to your questions (all of them) would be YES!
Put another way, in "sheer desperation" SCO quickly
assembled this "sloppiness" in the hopes that "no one will
notice"....Guess it didn't work....
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
I am so looking forward to Wednesday!!!
MSS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
In Brodericks statement he does actually say the following:
2.I have
been employed by SCO as the Director of
Software Licensing since May 2001.
I
have been involved in sales and licensing of the
UNIX software for SCO and
its
predecessors since 1991.
Could this possibly be something
that SCO could try and use to defeat this motion - saying that his personal
knowledge is actually from 1991 to the present, not just from 2001?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 09:56 PM EDT
- Reward Offered... - Authored by: chrisbrown on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 11:04 PM EDT
|
Authored by: gmp on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
Hey, I know something that Bill Broderick does have personal knowledge of --
he's the guy who signed the letter
which put the ancient Unix source code, up through version
32/V (the basis for the BSDs), under a free/open source BSD
license.
Greg
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
So I can post an OT.
Brian S.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: danb35 on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
Steve, we met last month at the computer law seminar at UD. This memo, and the
reply posted below, are things of beauty! Not to mention entertaining at
points. Good job, and good luck on Wed.![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WayneStPaul on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 11:05 PM EDT |
Often the members of Groklaw that have experience in or around the courtroom
have given us some idea of what to expect before the court session. I am
hoping that somebody will take the time to set some expectations for us.
Will SCOG try to defend the Broderick Affidavit?
Is it defendable (to me it seems that there is no defense for the affidavit)?
Does DC have enough precedent and law on their side to expect a Summary
Disposition?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 11:38 PM EDT |
Talk about being hung out to dry!
It's got to be getting warmer in Lindon. Think Darl and the gang just got a
taste of what IBM is going to do to them?
And I'm guessing that the smug smiles have fallen off some faces in M$ too.
PJ's right; these are a treat after the bilge and toe rags from TSCOG.
DCC's lawyers should go into the carving business:- thin, lean, nothin' left but
the bone.
---
To The SCO Group - show us your cows.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
Shall we refer this to a grand jury? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gleef on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
Incidentally, in January, 2002, William Broderick was the same person who
signed the open letter through which Caldera released the "Ancient Unix"
versions under a BSD-like license.
Here's a copy of
the letter.
Doesn't matter much, but I thought it was an interesting
tidbit. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 06:23 AM EDT |
After paragraph 8 is struck, paragraph 9 is left referring to an unknown and
undefined License Agreement. ("The License Agreement is still in effect
and has not been terminated by any party.")
Why did they skip it? Surely Mr. Broderick has as little personal knowledge of
that as of any of the other clauses they want to strike. He can't know whether
DCC has terminated the license, and stating that it's still in effect is a legal
conclusion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
Thus, rather than "show affirmatively" that that Mr. Broderick has
personal knowledge of the parties' intent ...
The second that is probably a duplicate.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
What SCO's lawyers knew (and admit to knowing) about Broderick's knowledge, or
lack thereof:
From SCO's memo in opposition to DCC's summary
disposition motion
6. Daimler
argues that if the parties to the License Agreement had intended to require
certification regarding the use of UNIX technology in Linux,
they would have included
such language in Section 2.05.
Daimler Mem. at 12. This is mistaken. It was not until
well after 1988, when the License Agreement was signed, that Linux came into
existence and even later that Linux became a commercial
platform capable of replacing
UNIX. Broderick Aff.
Paragraph 26. Neither Daimler nor SCO drafted the License
Agreement, and neither party, nor the original licensor and licensee, could
have
contemplated the use of Linux at that time.Id.
Where the parties did not contemplate
the use of the new
technology at the time of executing the contract, their intent must
be gleaned from a broader reading of the contract and from the natural
implications of
the language. See, e.g., Abkco Music,
Inc. v. Westminster Music, Ltd., 838 F. Supp. 153
(S.D.N.Y. 1993) (whether contract providing licensee "all rights" in copyrighted
songs
applied to newly developed technologies was
question of fact for the jury).
Quatermass
IANAL IHMO
etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChubbyTiger on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
Those were possibly the funniest set of legal documents I've seen here yet. The
MacBeth quote was lovely, but I thought that final little jab in footnote 5 was
the perfect finishing touch: "Chysler Motor Corporation ceased to exist 15 years
ago, in 1989." Not a big deal by itself, but after all of the other jabs at
SCO, offhandly remarking that they didn't even know what company to
send things to just killed me. I'm still smiling.
CT [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
"Though Mr. Broderick claims that he submitted the
Affidavit "based on my personal knowledge" and that if
sworn as a witness could "testify competently to the facts
stated herein" (Broderick Aff ¶1), his statement that he
has been employed by SCO as Director of Software Licensing
since May 2001 shows the contrary."
The words "as Director of Software Licensing" bothers me. Was Mr.
Broderick employed in any other capacity that would afford him personal
knowledge?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 12:23 AM EDT |
It was his employer's lawyer. If I worked for SCOg and they or their lawyer
asked me to sign something I would be running for the door.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
I was wondering why SCOG has a pattern of initiating lawsuits based on evidence
that is flimsy to none: my answer at this point is that SCOG has a fixation on
discovery both as a tool to gather intelligence if not evidence and as a tool to
drive up the costs of litigation for the other party. If discovery is tailored
down to match the evidence that they have to back up the charges they are
actually bringing up in court as opposed to their much broader allegations both
in court and in the press, then SCOG will be cut off at the knees.
If AZ and DC are the "best" end user victims that SCOG could pick
after months of research, then SCOG must be one ineffective predator - and we
all know what happens to lame, toothless and nearsighted predators on the plains
of the Serengeti. My guess is that SCOG chose not to sue a financial services
firm, because such a lawsuit would compel the attention of the regulatory
agencies, which would then have no choice but to earn their taxpayers' money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
My guess is most responses to SCO's certification request responded to what the
contract said SCO could ask for in certification and didn't address anything
about Linux use or the other rediculous requirements of the letter.
SCO needs to establish in a court that current licensees must certify they are
not using Linux, which is not a requirement of the contract. If they can get an
injunction against DC they can then threaten their entire customer base that
they must certify Linux non-use or be sued.
This way SCO finds out who has Linux and can start planning on who to sue
claiming they contributed UNIX source to Linux illegally since they obviously
had access to the source code.
The only other potential reason is to halt the decline of their customer base
(which is dropping rapidly) by forcing current users to certify Linux non-use,
thereby suggestion that use of Linux violates the agreement. Great way to try
and stay afloat: lets threaten our customer base in case they are thinking of
leaving us. Good way never to pick up new business again if you ask me.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
While the Darl McBrides and the Ken Browns of the world litter the Congressional
mailboxes with junk like pigeons, I sugest this more targeted approach for
ourselves:
http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/26641-1.html
Noteworthy quote from the linked article: "Morton [Andrew Morton is one of
the maintainers of the Linux kernel] spoke last week at a meeting sponsored by
the Forum on Technology and Innovation, a semi-regular meeting to address
technology-related issues held by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-
Ore.) and the Council on Competitiveness."
So we have three contacts to get our networking tree going: Sen. John Ensign,
Sen. Ron Wyden, and the Council on Competitiveness.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
See footnote 1.
I think DCC are pointing the Judge at the other SCO cases, to get a look at SCOs
antics perhaps?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|