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
The Afterglow
Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 11:27 AM EDT

For your enjoyment, here are some reactions to yesterday's ruling in the DaimlerChrysler case.

Slashdot, of course, had some fun, with a mini contest to put words into an imagined SCO-retained Iraqi spokesman, to deny the defeat, as in: "We have destroyed the Chrysler infidels and their heads now adorn pikes along all interstates leading into Utah."

Personally, I think Blake Stowell need not be replaced:

"The biggest mistake that anyone can make with today's ruling is to assume that the thing that happened today with DaimlerChrysler will have some sort of impact on our AutoZone or Novell or IBM cases."


Here's an interesting tidbit. It seems SCO sent out 3,000 letters, and only 1,500 responded:

"SCO sent letters to 3,000 license holders, including DaimlerChrysler, asking them to certify they were still complying with terms of the license.

"SCO did not allege DaimlerChrysler abused the license, but the automaker was one of about 1,500 licensees who did not respond to that letter, Stowell said."

That Seattle newspaper had grave difficulty absorbing the news of the defeat. My all-time favorite intro to any of the stories was theirs:

"A Michigan judge on Wednesday dismissed most parts of a lawsuit that sought to force auto giant DaimlerChrysler AG to comply with copyright laws and software agreements with a Utah-based software company.

Um. What? A judge won't force DC to comply with copyright laws? Priceless, no? The SCO PR blitz was so massive, it did permanent brain damage. Someone should sue. Folks just can't get it that the DaimlerChrysler case had nothing to do with copyright, except in SCO's alternate universe.

SCO now says, according to the Financial Times, that they don't know if DC uses Linux, in which case, one wonders about some of their legal documents:

"'Their intent was to pick two users and threaten them in court to put all Linux users on notice. That failed miserably,' said Stuart Cohen, chief executive of OSDL, a non-profit Linux consortium. . . .

"Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman, said: 'We were looking for information to accurately determine if they were holding to the terms of their (Unix) software agreement. Because they weren't certifying we assumed they could be using Linux.'

"SCO said it did not know whether DaimlerChrysler uses Linux. The company has said only that it uses a variety of software."

And here is my favorite headline:

"SCOs DaimlerChrysler Case Crashes

"The SCO Group's breach of contract lawsuit against automobile manufacturer DaimlerChrysler came to a crashing halt Wednesday afternoon, after a judge ruled in favor of a dismissal motion."

And for first prize in the pro-SCO spin department, I have to give the gold to Pete Williams' report. And what does the future hold? Here's Stowell to confirm they probably won't pursue it:

"Looking ahead, Stowell said he doesn't see SCO pursuing the case further. But, he added, 'I think the company is considering its legal options since the judge allowed for some limited discovery based on their delay in certifying.' At the same time, Stowell said, 'There's an important distinction between this case and our other cases. This is not a setback against SCO's Linux copyright cases.'"

And which cases would that be, Mr. Stowell? You are swearing to the Utah judge that IBM isn't being accused on that score. AutoZone is accused of copying what? Maybe you guys need to clarify your position, because none of us can see any copyright cases. The most, stretching as far as we can, would be one case, the AutoZone case. You know, the one that just got stayed and is stuck in the sand in Nevada. If they were dreaming of end user cases, plural, that dream just got put on hold.

Here's the irony, as pointed out by Allonn Levy, an attorney with Hopkins & Carley in the eWeek story. SCO did all this to try to ruin Linux's reputation. Instead, it is validating it:

"'SCO's purpose in pursuing a very public, aggressive litigation strategy, would seem to be to undermine the public's confidence in the rival Linux operating system by suggesting that it contains infringing materials,' he said. 'Ironically though, if it continues to suffer such severe setbacks, it may instead succeed in permanently validating Linux by publicly demonstrating its legitimacy.'"

Instead of fussing about how long the courts take, I think, then, we should savor the moments, and let folks gradually absorb the lesson SCO is teaching the world, namely that Linux is a great operating system written by people of solid ethics who didn't steal anything from anybody. First, they didn't need to. Second, they don't want to. The joy is in the creation, in the creativity. And Linux wasn't written to make money, so there really was absolutely no motive to steal. It's all about fun. Freedom and fun. What a great combination.


  


The Afterglow | 437 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT, URLs here, please
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 11:48 AM EDT
Trolls, too...

-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here, please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 11:49 AM EDT
So PJ Can find 'em quickly...

-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT
gotta say it
lovin' it
scox is BURNT TOAST
roflol
scox is getting burnt by their own FUD campaign
someone on yahoo asked if we should be correcting these reporters about this not
being copyright case but i say nope scox FUD said it was copyright now let them
eat their own dogfood
and yes i am gloating

---
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 | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: dlk on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 11:52 AM EDT
That Seattle newspaper had grave difficulty absorbing the news of the defeat. My all-time favorite intro to any of the stories was theirs:
"A Michigan judge on Wednesday dismissed most parts of a lawsuit that sought to force auto giant DaimlerChrysler AG to comply with copyright laws and software agreements with a Utah-based software company.
Could they be using Word for page layup? It could be the "autocorrect" features kicking in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 11:58 AM EDT
I am surprised that SCOX is not trying to spin this as some kind of (phyrric)
victory.

That's round one, score it for the good guys. The main event is yet to come, so
keep your (mental)celebration short. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

And so the SCO world ends...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:05 PM EDT
... not with a Bang but with a Whimper.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Linux (Manchurian) Candidate
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:08 PM EDT
Maybe SCO is really Linux's Manchurian Candidate in Microsoft's World.

Because SCO lawsuits have been the best advertising that Linux could have ever
hoped for. And Linux, after all this is over, will have it's legiticamacy
proven.

Maybe there really is a connection between IBM and SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:08 PM EDT
What does Rob Enderle say about it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The Afterglow - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 01:22 PM EDT
  • vroom vroom (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 06:57 PM EDT
The Afterglow
Authored by: talahin on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:08 PM EDT
Great.
It seems SCO sent out 3,000 letters, and only 1,500 responded.

So, when can we expect the next 1499 lawsuits?

[ Reply to This | # ]

BBC report
Authored by: TwinDX on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:10 PM EDT
The BBC News website has an article about SCO's humiliating failure in court here.

What pleases me greatly is the fact that they've got some key facts straight; most noticably they've not used SCO's favourite line about being 'The Owner of the Unix Operating System', but instead say:
Its most controversial assertion is that the popular open source operating system Linux includes some code taken from the version of Unix claimed by SCO.

SCO's entire ownership of a version of Unix is also being disputed by Novell.
It's nice and refreshing to see a proper news source getting things right, rather than repeating verbatim what Darl and co try to put across. Hooray for the BBC!

[ Reply to This | # ]

"SCO's Linux copyright cases"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT
Blake Stowell said:
This is not a setback against SCO's Linux copyright cases. (emphasis added)
Oh yeah? So the other cases are Linux copyright cases? It's funny but somehow, I thought they said recently in Utah that the cases have nothing to do with Linux copyrights, that it was IBM who brought this topic on the table and so forth...

So, mister Stowell, which is it?

NNP

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stowell still in denial
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT
Looking ahead, Stowell said he doesn't see SCO pursuing the case further. But, he added, 'I think the company is considering its legal options since the judge allowed for some limited discovery based on their delay in certifying.' Point 1: The discovery would be limited to establishing the facts regarding SC's tardiness. Given the fact that they used the wrong address, a positive ruling would be as probable as a George Tenet "Slam Dunk". The judge did NOT say that DC was tardy. He simply did not rule on whether were they were tardy or not. And for what damages could SCOX sue DC for based on this tardiness? What could SCO possibly have left to sue DC about that would be worth a penny? By SCO's own admission, they sent 3000 letters, and received only 1500 answers. Since the letters were asking for more than the contract stipulates, SCO can not claim that they are owed answers at all. Wouldn't SCO have to re-word their letters asking for certification before they could send out the 1500 remainding letter?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow, will it last?
Authored by: McLae on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:24 PM EDT
I was talking to a client this week, and asked when they would be using Linux.
The response was, the managment would not allow them to use Linux due to the SCO
lawsuits.

I was nice, and managed not to laugh in his face. (with damage to my tongue)

The FUD campain has had an affect on managment decisions. Let's hope the wool is
now starting to fray.

---
Thomas (The McLae)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: John M. Horn on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:33 PM EDT

Beautiful!!!

Now I wait with bated breath for the next pearls of wisdom from Rob Enderle and
Laura DiDio. I haven't had a good cackle in a long time...

John Horn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wrong time
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:37 PM EDT
to quit smoking! I'm ready for a nap! :D

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should Daimler...
Authored by: _Arthur on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:40 PM EDT
...Request that the case be transferred to Small Claims Court, now ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

RE: Mozilla Oddity?
Authored by: Graywing on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:45 PM EDT
Saw the redirect in fire fox, tried it in Safari and got this error
"Safari can’t open the page “http://http//www.sco.com/company/execs/” because it can’t find the server “http”.

Not only can SCO screw up a lawsuit but their own site code too. :)

---
Ahh!! The mind what a wonderful trap.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Headlines
Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
You know, it is funny when I read the SCO defeat with DCX, the press makes it
sound like the WHOLE SCO legal nut was shut down.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DaimlerChrysler could still have problems!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
I recently replaced the fuel filter on my DaimlerChrysler Jeep with a part from
Autozone.

Stowell could argue that since my $10 fuel filter was rung up on a Red Hat Linux
OS for a DaimlerChrysler Jeep that DC is still causing irreputable harm.

Think about it :)

Matt

[ Reply to This | # ]

welovethescodirectorofpublicrelations.com
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT
is not yet registered as a website, but it surely can't be long coming. On the basis of his latest reality-distortion the creative talent of Mr Stowell deserves a site devoted to it - somewhat like this well-known one. Actually, I think SCO should run it themselves. The revenue from the merchandising operation alone would compensate for the abject failure of the Revolutionary Guard oops, SCOSource initiative to achieve its objectives.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Limited Discovery?
Authored by: the_flatlander on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT
Can somebody clue me in, please? Where did the Judge grant the SCOundrels any
"limited discovery" in this case? What's to "discover" to
figure out whether DCC took too long to tell the SCOundrels that they weren't
using their stinking software anymore.

The Flatlander

Personally, I'm looking forward to more of the SCOundrels' "victories"
in court, just like this one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fave headline:
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 12:59 PM EDT
'SCO Loses Unix Copyright Claim'

Bwahahahaha!

It's nice when media ineptitude finally turns on the would be puppet masters!

Link

< p>---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Reasons to Celebrate
Authored by: lightsail on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 01:02 PM EDT
From the TSG Complaint:

First:

Defendant agreed under §7.05(a) of the DC Software Agreement to the following restrictions on confidentiality of the Software Product:

DCC was was found to have not violated confidentiality of the Unix SysV license with its Linux use. This make violation of confidentiality of the Unix SysV license a huge mountain to climb in any future Linux lawsuits.

Second:

28. On information and belief, DC’s refusal to certify that it is not violating the DC Software Agreement is also based, in part, on DC’s use of UNIX technology, in violation of the DC Software Agreement, in migrating its installed base to the Linux operating system.

The court found no validity to the charge that DCC's use of Linux violated Its SysV Unix License.

TSG, three strikes and you are OUT! oh! Yeah! IBM has a nasty wicked curve ball... Strike Three -Game Over

[ Reply to This | # ]

Up in Michigan
Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 01:18 PM EDT

I keep wondering if the judge in the D-C case is still pondering the "30 day" issue because she is irritated that the case ever came into her courtroom.

TSCOG seem to think they still have a prayer in her courtroom, but I wonder if she might be preparing to nail them to the wall over the 30-day thing: after all TSCOG sued without any attempt to follow up on their original letter, without any attempt to contact D-C to see what was up, or in any other way attempted to resolve this before going to court. I think that was innapropriate on the part of TSCOG, and I'm hoping and thinking that this judge might have something to say about that innapropriatness.

---
All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

short interest in SCO 54.5% of the float
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 01:43 PM EDT
Shares of SCO recently declined 38 cents, or 8.2%, to $4.25. That's about 81%
below its 52-week high of $22.29, signaling investors may be losing faith in the
Lindon, Utah-based company's Linux battle. In another indication of Wall
Street's skepticism, the short interest in SCO reached a staggering 54.5% of the
float as of June 15, according to Nasdaq; that short interest was 21.6 times the
average daily volume of the stock vs. a days-to-cover ratio of around 2 a year
ago.

By Ronna Abramson
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
7/22/2004 12:59 PM EDT

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/software/10173326.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_
cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

[ Reply to This | # ]

short interest in SCO 54.5% of the float
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 01:44 PM EDT
Shares of SCO recently declined 38 cents, or 8.2%, to $4.25. That's about 81%
below its 52-week high of $22.29, signaling investors may be losing faith in the
Lindon, Utah-based company's Linux battle. In another indication of Wall
Street's skepticism, the short interest in SCO reached a staggering 54.5% of the
float as of June 15, according to Nasdaq; that short interest was 21.6 times the
average daily volume of the stock vs. a days-to-cover ratio of around 2 a year
ago.

By Ronna Abramson
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
7/22/2004 12:59 PM EDT

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/software/10173326.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_
cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 01:44 PM EDT
This link is a great effort.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: pooky on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT
Okay, we all knew this was a totally stupid lawsuit from the getgo. However, do
you think they will attempt to persue DC on damages about the tardiness of their
response based on a claim that DC would not respond until SCO sued them? Damages
would be legal fees? Will that fly in a court?

I'm asking because if SCO did and they won, the now infamous 1499 might start
worrying significantly about SCO coming after them. Stowell seems to spin this
in a light that it's a victory for SCO because they got DC to certify. However,
it's obvious that if that was the ONLY goal then SCO would have dropped the suit
after receiving DC's letter and not proceeded into a courtroom at all.

-pooky

---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: bpmann on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
Haha! The vnunet article even misspells the judges name!

Brian

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh I love this one...
Authored by: pooky on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 02:29 PM EDT

This is from The Street:

"DaimlerChrysler has since complied with terms of its software agreement with SCO, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell told the Associated Press. He said the company is considering whether to appeal."

So DCX has complied with the terms of it's software agreement? I guess DCX or anyone else didn't really need to answer all those other demands in the certification request did they? What happened to all that arguing in court about how the rest of the demands were a reasonable interpretation of the license language and that SCO would be materially harmed if DCX were allowed not to answer them and thus not certify? I thought the record showed that SCO said plainly that the DCX response "was not good enough".

Stowell's splashing me with all his back-paddling.

And secondly, if DCX has complied with the terms of it's agreement, what exactly then is SCO's grounds to appeal the decision? The issue of "speed" is still in front of the court, the others were answered by Blake's first sentence. Can you say carrot for the press?

-pooky

---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red herring
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 02:41 PM EDT
"The biggest mistake that anyone can make with today's ruling is to assume
that the thing that happened today with DaimlerChrysler will have some sort of
impact on our AutoZone or Novell or IBM cases." Blake Stowell

That statement of BS's is a red herring: the real implication of DC's courtroom
victory is that SCOG may not use licensing compliance requirements as a stalking
horse to probe and spy into what other operating systems corporate users have,
and to make demands on corporate end users that are clearly outside the language
of the licenses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gratitude to Microsoft & SCO
Authored by: StLawrence on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT
I think the opend source community in general, and Linux in particular,
owe a giant debt of gratitude to Microsoft & SCO's FUD machinery.
The positive exposure that Linux & open source is getting with the
collapse of the FUD in the courtrooms is just huge.

Some would consider the recent actions of Microsoft & SCO to be at best
a nuisance, and at worst an outrageous travesty. We need to recognize it
as a priceless gift that will probably never come again.

It's been noted on this site how SCO has successfully managed to spin
a few contracts cases as a war against open source & Linux, and how
stupid the press has been to report it as such. Well, the press hasn't
gotten any smarter, and they're now declaring that open source and Linux
are winning the fights that SCO has picked. Linux is being validated and
publicized for free by the same army of reporters that SCO has been
yammerring at ever since their campaign began. And as the other cases
plod through the system, it's just going to get better & better. It's
going to be free Linux advertising for as long as SCO survives.

Let's not pray for SCO's speedy demise. It's OK if the public validation
of Linux continues for many months, or even years. And let's not forget
that SCO, once a very significant UNIX vendor, has worked very hard to
alienate their existing customer base and chase them away. Gee, I wonder
what OS a typical long-time SCO UNIX user is going to turn to... Um,
maybe Linux?

Thank you, SCO. Thank you, Microsoft. Thanks you, thank you, thank you...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Implication for SCOX on Wall Street
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Since legal fees are now SCO's main expense, this ruling pretty much changes the
name of the game.

I would expecet DCC would want their legal fees reimbursed.
This would practically double the cost of ongoing litigation, as SCO would be
expected to not only pay their own legal fees, but also their opoonents, and
prudent prognosticators would assume that past track record (loss to DC) is the
best indicator for future litigous outcomers.

With all these lawsuits going on, the prudent thing for Wall Street is to take
this double burn rate into account when calculating SCO's cash flow.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Peter Williams and Repeated attempts?
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 03:37 PM EDT
The Peter Williams story quotes SCO as saying this:
"SCO defended its reason for bringing the case in the first place, saying:
"After repeated attempts to request their certification, and after
receiving no response, SCO filed litigation against DaimlerChrysler in March
2004."

What repeated attempts? AFAIK, and in their own statements, they sent ONE
letter and then sued. They do not mantion any calls, followup letters, etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO run over by Daimler but Linux battle rolls on
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 04:51 PM EDT

Forbes has an article that contains this nice quote:

SCO issued a statement effectively accepting the ruling. "SCO is satisfied with the outcome of this litigation now that DaimlerChrysler has certified its compliance," the company said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft (MSFT) numbers are in!
Authored by: scott_R on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 04:54 PM EDT
Looks like MS "beat" estimates for revenue and net. (These numbers
are always conservative. Extracting the usual number juggling though, they
missed estimated EPS by a penny. As a result, at this moment, their stock is
trading down $1.40 at $27.60. These numbers are based on closing price, and
considering it was up about $0.25 a minute before the numbers came out, MS can't
be real happy.

CNBC even took a few minutes to report the numbers, saying they didn't want to
report numbers too soon, which is a little suspicious, as they are part of the
MSN network. If they were outstanding numbers, you can bet your tail they would
have blasted them out right away.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A bit of realism here, please
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 05:22 PM EDT
Personally, I think Blake Stowell need not be replaced:
"The biggest mistake that anyone can make with today's ruling is to assume that the thing that happened today with DaimlerChrysler will have some sort of impact on our AutoZone or Novell or IBM cases."

For once, Blake Stowell is absolutely right. The issues in the other cases have nothing to do with the issues in the DaimlerChrysler case. PJ has done a lot of good work, but sometimes gets carried away by enthusiasm. This is yet another example.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOGspeak decoded
Authored by: tintak on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT
"SCO defended its reason for bringing the case in the first place, saying: "After repeated attempts to request their certification, and after receiving no response, SCO filed litigation against DaimlerChrysler in March 2004." Link

On first reading of this sentence I thought "Ah SCOG's lying again! However the difference in tense between 'attempts' and 'response" set me thinking.

I think the "repeated attempts to request their certification" means that the office junior kept forgetting to post the letter to DC (or some such excuse), and after they had managed "to request their certification" they recieved no response from DC.
They do seem to have a talent for creating statements such as these. Let us hope they do not manage to bamboozle the various courts with them.

---
Darl's folly.
"Somebody said it couldn't be done, and he knew it. So he tackled this thing that couldn't be done,... and he found that he couldn't do it!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ooops! - Authored by: tintak on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 06:21 PM EDT
  • SCOGspeak decoded - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:42 AM EDT
The Afterglow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 05:34 PM EDT
Have the BBC fixed this? It looks OK now.
Page Last Updated: Thursday, 22 July, 2004, 14:22 GMT 15:22 UK

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCOX revoked IBM's AIX License
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 06:49 PM EDT
Even though it was expressly perpetual and non-terminable, and that Novell waived any termination, SCOX went ahead and said they terminated IBM's AIX license. Why is this a big deal? No one really belives it I don't think, IBM has the contract and law on their side. Even if they did something bad, "non-terminable" would seem to say that SCOX could collect damages, but not terminate the license. Novell waived the termination as well, which they pretty clearly have rights to do from the APA.

Why SCOX did it was to try and get their SCOSource revenue. Think about it... IBM bought out their royalty obligations, so they can pretty much license AIX to whoever they wish for whatever amount they wish, in binary form at least. To license the AIX source code the licensee must also have a UNIX source license. SCOX is trying to get Linux users to buy a binary-only license to cover their IP in Linux. If they didn't terminate IBM's AIX license, then IBM could have just said "Don't bother with SCOX, we'll give you a free binary-only license for anything in Unix SYSV or AIX that happens to be in Linux". That would make SCOSource completely worthless. IBM may well have done that as they make a lot of money off Linux now. In order to prove any violations then, SCOX would have to show what SOURCE CODE IBM was letting customers use, i.e. point out the pieces of Linux they claim rights to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Forbes Idiocy - and yet another SCO lie
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 07:46 PM EDT
Roger Bickerstaffe, joint head of the IT law group at Bird and Bird, told vnunet.com: "I do not see this as being hugely negative for SCO.

"The onus was on DaimlerChrysler to notify SCO but it is pretty peripheral and does not impinge on the main cases with IBM and Novell."



Bickerstaffe added that SCO had requested a very high level of detail in its certification compliance requests.

"It all looked a bit over the top. DaimlerChrysler has not given this level of detail but it has been accepted," he said.

SCO defended its reason for bringing the case in the first place, saying: "After repeated attempts to request their certification, and after receiving no response, SCO filed litigation against DaimlerChrysler in March 2004.


Hello Mr Bickerstaffe. You're a fool. It's wasn't "a bit over the top". It was completely over the top, and completely outside the bounds of any DaimlerChrysler license. The judge has already determined this.

Hello SCO, your lying again. There was no "repeated attempts". There was one attempt - sending a letter to defunct company at the wrong address. This was undisputed in court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 08:02 PM EDT
IMHO, not only is SCO validating Linux (inadvertently) by their antics, but so
is Microsoft. The more these two groups run around screaming about Linux the way
they do, the more they convince people to try it and use it. Perhaps another
gift of $$$ to SCO to keep them alive doing stupid things will guarantee the
sinking of the Windows ship.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Afterglow on Yahoo, LQWiki
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 08:47 PM EDT
backinfullforce, aka BIFF, started a thread about the DC ruling that is still going strong. There have even been complaints that BIFF is a troll that is wasting everyone's time by feeding a useless discussion of 110+ posts with only 8 of his own.

I welcomed BIFF's improper questions, answered them in full, and proceeded to post responses to BIFF's further posts to cite my original post and create a chain of citations. My original post, Full response, answers the questions, and discusses such topics as copyright ownership, IBM's ownership of AIX, the mountains of evidence, the ways that SCOG contradicted itself. The top of my chain of posts was at Chain top.

Other posts in my chain fill out the discussion. For example, the fact that Novell cancelled SCOG's right to audit the SysV licensees last December was pointed out to me, and I added the information to my posts. I just added a quote from Amendment 2, where Novell's authorization to stop SCOG's audit can be found. It is currently in the top post of the chain.

My Full response also contains a link to Further discussion, which is part of a collection of pages on LQWiki where I am trying to organize information related to IBM's motion for PSJ and the discovery memos.

I hope to finish this collection of pages before IBM has to file its next memo, but I could use some help. If anyone wants to help, it's easy: just register with the wiki, find a page you want to modify, and click the Edit button to get a page you can edit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Radioactive Afterglow
Authored by: AllParadox on Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 09:29 PM EDT
If I have missed this point somewhere else, I aplogize for the repetition.

Everyone seems sort of happy, yeah, how nice, next case please.

DC just blew away TSG. This was not merely a win, it was an embarassment. This
judge did more than find it "more likely than not" that DC should
win.

This judge just found, *as a matter of law*, that the TSG complaint failed to
make a claim upon which relief could be granted, in all substantial particulars.
Let me say this differently: the TSG attorneys failed to describe enough facts
and enough factual connections, according to legal requirements, to justify
letting them present evidence on most of their claims.

The DC lawyers did not do it to them, though the DC lawyers did a very find job
and presented some of the best legal writing I have seen. The TSG lawyers did
it all to themselves. They were the ones who selected the case, selected the
claims, researched the case law to find specific words and phrases justifiying
such claims, worded the statements to get the claims to fall within accepted
bounds of earlier opinions. They were the ones who failed to amend their
complaint to deal with criticisms made by the DC lawyers. They were the ones
who failed to amend their complaint to deal with the new "fact" of
allegedly tardy certification, as opposed to refusal to certify. They were the
ones who flubbed the Broderick affidavit, and trashed their own credibility with
an unfamiliar judge.

You should believe that every other judge on every other TSG case knows by now
about the summary judgment ruling, in detail. None of them have missed the
significance.

Motions for summary judgment are common. They are routinely filed in every
contested civil case. Because they are so common, they are rarely granted. On
occasion, a judge may dismiss a claim or two, usually on claims that the
attorneys debated about adding in the first place.

It is a real, personal, slam against the attorneys to gut their case on summary
judgment. Ordinarily, trial judges will not do this because they, and the
appellate courts, believe that parties should get their day in court, in spite
of some attorney sloppiness. The higher the standard of performance of the law
firm (and the higher their hourly fee), the less the sloppiness is tolerated.
The higher the profile of the case, the more strident the public claims of the
parties, the less the sloppiness is tolerated.

The better the claims of the plaintiff come within established case law, the
much more likely it is that the claims will survive this hurdle, so even if a
judge is actively hostile to an attorey, they will refrain from summary judgment
dismissals because they will be overturned on appeal. A well plead case is a
ticket to the jury trial.

This judge knew everyone was watching. This judge carefully studied the
applicable case law, studied the claims, weighed the strength of the claims,
then drafted her courtroom statement, in large part, directly from case law. It
will be very difficult, to impossible, to overturn her on appeal.

I think it would be fair to say that the TSG attorneys have been found to be
less than competent, for so flatly failing to craft sufficent pleadings in the
first place, and for failing to properly handle them or defend them in the
second place.

From now on, all the other judges in all the other TSG cases will take a
jaundiced view of anything TSG lawyers have to say. The TSG task just took a
quantum jump in difficulty.

---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rising to the poetic
Authored by: technoCon on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 02:39 AM EDT
Sometimes a bit of prose strikes me as being particularly apt:

"The joy is in the creation, in the creativity. And Linux wasn't written to
make money, so there really was absolutely no motive to steal. It's all about
fun. Freedom and fun. What a great combination."

Thanks for putting a profound thought into just the right set of words.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blake's comment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 11:33 AM EDT
Sure it won't have any impact. You'll lose those cases independently to this
loss :P
But i hope, four lost cases will have an impact on your pocket.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some slight tweak
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 23 2004 @ 11:41 AM EDT
"And Linux wasn't written to make money, so there really was absolutely no
motive to steal. It's all about fun. Freedom and fun. What a great
combination."

Well, Linus definitely didn't start it for profit. But IBM, RedHat, Novell
definitely contribute to it for profit. Which isn't bad at all. I just say,
there could be a 'motive to steal', but due to the nature of open source, a
stolen code would be discovered as soon as it is released under GPL. This is why
SCO is so screwed up when they ask for unrelated source code to prove 'line by
line copying'. Who asks M$?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow according to eWeek
Authored by: edwardstd on Saturday, July 24 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is up and running with his take on the SCO vs. DC
decision. Content is pretty much what's to be expected. Here's the link:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1627368,00.asp

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: Erin on Saturday, July 24 2004 @ 10:41 PM EDT
The BBC did a decent job of reporting the DC - SCO trial. Check out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3917395.stm

---
e. williams

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Afterglow
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 27 2004 @ 03:57 AM EDT
0 1 2 3

That's about as much as a 2-bit company like SCO would understand......

[ 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 0.07 seconds