|
SCO and Red Hat Each Tell the Judge Their Story |
|
Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 05:48 PM EST
|
We have the letters to Judge Sue Robinson from the parties in Red Hat v. SCO. SCO's letter seems a bit shorter than Red Hat's, as you can see by the text below. That is because SCO neglected to mention the following: - AutoZone
- losing their motion to stay the DaimlerChrysler case and SCO's remaining claim re timeliness' stipulated dismissal thereafter
- G2's Motion to Intervene and to Unseal the Court's File in SCO v. IBM
- Novell
SCO tells the judge that IBM filed four affidavits under seal, but only Red Hat tells her that all the documents related to SCO's motion to amend the complaint are under seal. It's a riot. Rashomon reborn. Maybe SCO would like the judge to imagine that things are going trippingly along? They tell the judge that "the parties have taken nine additional depositions and have noticed more than twenty additional depositions for January and February 2005." But which parties? Take a look at Pacer for yourself and see who appears to have been pursuing discovery with vigor (keeping in mind that there are additional depositions that don't appear on that list). Red Hat sums up their viewpoint, after telling about DaimlerChrysler saying SCO had failed to pursue discovery or to cooperate in it:
"In conclusion, the events in these related cases over the past 90 days -- most notably SCO's actions in the DaimlerChrysler case -- provide further evidence of SCO's litigation strategy of delaying for as long as possible resolution of the copyright claims that are at the heart of the pending lawsuits." You think?
*****************************
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
[letterhead]
January 3, 2005
Jack B. Blumenfeld
[phone, fax, email]
BY HAND
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court
[address]
Re: Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., C.A. No. 03-772 (SLR)
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
We write pursuant to Your Honor's April 6, 2004 Order to summarize the status of the SCO v. IBM case pending before The Honorable Dale A. Kimball in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Since our last update to the Court, on October 4, 2004, the following has transpired:
On October 14, SCO filed a Motion to Amend its complaint, seeking to add a single copyright claim relating to IBM's use of infringing SCO code in its AIX product. The parties have now fully briefed the motion, but no date for oral argument has been scheduled.
On October 19, the parties argued SCO's two pending discovery applications before the Magistrate Judge. During the hearing, the Magistrate Judge ordered IBM to provide affidavits concerning its production of certain Linux-related documents that the Court had previously ordered produced, required the parties to exchange privilege logs, and took the remainder of SCO's discovery applications under advisement. (The Court entered a written Order on October 20.) On November 19, IBM filed (under seal) four affidavits in response to the Magistrate Judge's October 20 Order, and on November 19, 2004, the parties exchanged privilege logs.
On December 22, SCO filed a Motion to Compel IBM to produce more detailed affidavits in response to the Magistrate Judge's October 20 Order, and to compel IBM to produce witnesses to testify on several topics in two Rule 30(b)(6) notices of deposition that SCO had served.
SCO has filed Memoranda in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Eighth Counterclaim and Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims. (IBM's reply briefs are due on January 14, 2005.)
In addition, the parties have taken nine additional depositions and have noticed more than twenty additional depositions for January and February 2005.
We will provide the Court with another update of the status of the litigation on or about April 4, 2005.
Respectfully,
__[signature]___
Jack B. Blumenfeld
JBB/bls
cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (By Hand)
William F. Lee, Esquire (By Fax)
Edward Normand, Esquire (By Fax)
****************************************
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
[letterhead]
January 3, 2005
BY HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
Chief Judge
United States District Court for the
District of Delaware
[address]
Re: Red Hat, Inc. v. SCO Group, Inc.
Civil Action No. 03-772-SLR
Dear Judge Robinson:
Pursuant to the Court's April 6, 2004 Order requesting a quarterly report on the status of various related litigation matters, Red Hat, Inc. submits this letter. Although Red Hat is not a party to these other related cases, Red Hat offers the following summary based upon publicly available information.
1. SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.
As of October 4, 2004 when Red Hat submitted its last update, SCO's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, stay IBM's counterclaim ten and IBM's motion for partial summary judgment on IBM's tenth [sic] counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of copyright were pending. Both motions remain under consideration.
On October 14, 2004, SCO filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. IBM filed an opposition to this motion on November 30, 2004. All of the briefs relating to this motion have been sealed.
On November 30, 2004, G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc. ("G2"), a publisher of IT industry publications, filed a motion to intervene and motion to unseal the court's file. G2 requests, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), that it be permitted to intervene, and that the stipulated protective order entered into by the parties on September 16, 2003 be vacated or modified to permit public disclosure of the court's sealed records. The basis for G2's motion is that the denial of the public's right to access the sealed pleadings not only violates the common law right of public access to judicial records, but also the public's First Amendment right to oversee the judicial system. As of the date of this letter, neither party has responded to G2's motion.
2. SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc.
The Autozone case has been stayed since August 6, 2004, subject to a limited period of discovery relating to the issue of preliminary injunctive relief. This period of limited discovery ended December 13, 2004. The parties also entered into a protective order on October 29, 2004.
3. SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.
Since Red Hat's October 4, 2004 update letter, Novell has filed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Novell makes two main arguments in its motion: (1) that it cannot be liable for slander of title because it has a legal privilege to make a good-faith assertion of a rival property claim and to protect; and (2) SCO cannot show that Novell acted with malice, which it asserts is a necessary element of an action of slander of title. The motion has been fully briefed, and a hearing has been scheduled for January 20, 2005.
4. SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler, Inc.
Since October 4, 2004, the court granted summary judgment to DaimlerChrysler on all of its claims with respect to the sufficiency of its certification, leaving only one claim challending the timeliness of the certification. On November 17, 2004, SCO filed a Motion For Stay of Proceedings, asserting that this case should be stayed until IBM case has been resolved because a ruling in the IBM case would "provide important guidance concerning the obligations of end users like [DaimlerChrysler] under the certification requirement at issue here." In its opposition, DaimlerChrysler argued that SCO has no basis for a stay primarily because the IBM case has no bearing on the timeliness issue. DaimlerChrysler explained in its opposition that SCO had essentially abandoned its prosecution of the case -- missing each deadline set by the court, failing to initiate discovery, failing to respond to DaimlerChrysler's discovery requests, and failing to file witness and exhibit lists per the court's amended scheduling order. The court heard oral argument on November 24, 2004 and denied SCO's motion to stay. On December 21, 2004, the court entered a Stipulated Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice. SCO has until January 11, 2005 to file a claim of appeal.
In conclusion, the events in these related cases over the past 90 days -- most notably SCO's actions in the DaimlerChrysler case -- provide further evidence of SCO's litigation strategy of delaying for as long as possible resolution of the copyright claims that are at the heart of the pending lawsuits.
Respectfully submitted,
________[signature]______
Josy W. Ingersoll
JWI:cg
cc: Clerk of the Court (by hand)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire
Michelle D. Miller, Esquire (by facsimile)
Mark G. Matuschak, Esquire (by facsimile)
Stephen N. Zack, Esquire (by facsimile)
Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 06:38 PM EST |
you know the drill.
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 06:39 PM EST |
That final paragraph.... I think you will find it's almost word for word the
same as past letters
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 07:01 PM EST |
I would guess that whatever credibility SCO had with Judge Robinson is gone.
So what now?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bonzai on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 07:04 PM EST |
Ken Brown of the Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution (you know from the book about Linux being a clone which was to
be released soon after May 20, 2004 but never came) is now working on a new
Linux-related study. All they say about it now is:
For years,
proprietary software makers have comforted themselves that competing open-source
programs have little market share. But is this the proper way to measure
progress towards their strategic goal? Under the legal defense of "laches," open
source may wish to stay unobtrusive, steadily establishing squatters rights....
today, undermine title to existing property; after 3-6 years, start chomping on
the house. Laches has broad support, including some of the Linux Lobby's top
legal minds. To request an advance copy of Ken Brown's forthcoming AdTI study,
click here.
The 'Click here' link enables you to send an email
to the webmaster of AdTI. Besides that, the title of their homepage is
now:
AdTI: the think tank that dares to criticize the Linux
Lobby
Well, they are not the only think tank to do so (see
When
Think Tanks Attack by Tim Lambert), but AdTI keeps trying more than the
other think tanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sticks & Stones - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 07:09 PM EST
- OT - Alexis de Tocqueville, new FUD to come - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 07:19 PM EST
- OT - Alexis de Tocqueville, new FUD to come - Authored by: star-dot-h on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 08:02 PM EST
- About those awards - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 10:29 PM EST
- More fun - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 10:47 PM EST
- OT - Alexis de Tocqueville - Authored by: star-dot-h on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 09:01 PM EST
- OT - Alexis de Tocqueville, new FUD to come - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 09:43 PM EST
- AdTI director Macklin caught up in Worldcom scandal - Authored by: fgoldstein on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 11:14 PM EST
- OT - best part is the author's picture - maggots - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 12:14 AM EST
- OT - Alexis de Tocqueville, new FUD to come - Authored by: blacklight on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 12:32 AM EST
- The think tank that dares to kick the underdog! - Authored by: TimMann on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 03:08 AM EST
- OT - Alexis de Tocqueville, new FUD to come - Authored by: muswell100 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 03:27 AM EST
- If they cant even desing a web page ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 07:25 AM EST
- System Admins: Give your users a Linux desktop with controlled access to MS Windows Programs - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 09:38 AM EST
- Cnet says "Software firms want copyright law rewrite" no internet download of software?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:14 PM EST
- Words of Wisdom that the PC industry does not hear ... - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:47 PM EST
- Bill Gates' Media Center PC demo froze while MS manager gets Blue Screen of Death! - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 04:40 PM EST
- OT - Alexis de Tocqueville, new FUD to come - Authored by: stuart_b on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:00 PM EST
- OT - Alexis de Tocqueville, new FUD to come - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 09:42 PM EST
- Unobtrusive ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 08 2005 @ 06:50 AM EST
- Clickable link - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 08 2005 @ 06:53 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 07:30 PM EST |
Re: SCO v IBM
Brent O. Hatch [one of SCO's lawyers], August 26th 2004, IBM-279-A-1:
"...any discovery and deposition plan, absolutely impossible at this
time" (end of paragraph 1)
"...such a plan would be a futile exercise" (end of paragraph 2)
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: m_si_M on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 07:57 PM EST |
In case it hasn't been mentioned yet: D. McB has been selected as one of the
worst five IT Managers 2004.
And here is the
reward. Enjoy! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 08:24 PM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 08:31 PM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 07:19 AM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 09:32 AM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 11:44 AM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 02:37 PM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: LocoYokel on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 02:07 PM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 08:33 PM EST
- Darl, first of the worst. - Authored by: jim Reiter on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 08:35 PM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 08:43 PM EST
- OT here, please - Authored by: ray08 on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 09:17 PM EST
- Google Zeitgeist - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 09:19 PM EST
- Using SCO tacticts to fight speeding tickets - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 09:37 PM EST
- Nice bit about Sun - Authored by: rm6990 on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 09:55 PM EST
- Alternatives to Java - Authored by: cc0028 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 03:38 AM EST
- Alternatives to Java - Authored by: ff5166 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 07:25 AM EST
- mono - Authored by: cc0028 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 07:44 AM EST
- mono - Authored by: John Hasler on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 11:40 AM EST
- mono - analogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 08 2005 @ 11:09 AM EST
- mono - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 12:11 PM EST
- mono - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST
- Alternatives to Java - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 08:57 AM EST
- Alternatives to Java - Authored by: alisonken1 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 12:14 PM EST
- Nice bit about Sun - Authored by: gbl on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:30 AM EST
- Nice FUD about Sun - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 03:30 PM EST
- Darl's reward - Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 09:56 PM EST
- Schizophrenia, or cold blooded cynicism? - Authored by: davcefai on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:58 AM EST
- Gates endures PC crash during speech at U.S. tech show - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 04:15 AM EST
- Link: other try - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 04:16 AM EST
- Link: other try - Authored by: belzecue on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 05:06 AM EST
- Thanks. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 05:22 AM EST
- Thanks. - Authored by: red floyd on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 10:53 AM EST
- Thanks. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 11:59 AM EST
- OT here, please (Java terminates FreeBSD License) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:03 AM EST
- "The biggest distributors of Linux are [-snip-] and the SCO Group." - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:27 AM EST
- TheReg: The government open source dynamic - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:39 AM EST
- On IBM's PC division - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 07:14 AM EST
- Some Novell news - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 07:16 AM EST
- On Rahomon - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 07:20 AM EST
- Is Bill Gates dubbing FOSS fans Communists on CNET News? - Authored by: muswell100 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 07:40 AM EST
- Communist - Authored by: cc0028 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 08:00 AM EST
- Is Bill Gates dubbing FOSS fans Communists on CNET News? - Authored by: Naich on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 08:24 AM EST
- Gates himself benefited from relaxed IP regime... - Authored by: macrorodent on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 10:12 AM EST
- Communists, huh - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 10:39 AM EST
- Spoken like a true MONOPOLIST... being a monopolist is illegal, being a communist is not ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 11:52 AM EST
- Is Bill Gates dubbing FOSS fans Communists on CNET News? - Authored by: frk3 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:01 PM EST
- "Red" China - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:17 PM EST
- "Red" China - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 08:02 PM EST
- OT Firefox Browser Mentioned on Limbaugh - Authored by: frk3 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 12:47 PM EST
- OT : Yankee Group at it again - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 12:58 PM EST
- Some legal odds and ends - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST
- I am amazed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:52 PM EST
- I am amazed - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 08 2005 @ 04:54 PM EST
- New front in the TCO FUD wars - Authored by: ujay on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 02:58 PM EST
- Limbaugh Firefox - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 04:34 PM EST
- OT: MS vs Claria's EULA - Authored by: Asynchronous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:17 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 07:58 PM EST |
were the admissions that no code comparisons had been done since 1999.
The bit that shows the judge that all of SCOG's lanham act violations have even
less support than originally thought, ie they have less than zero support.
That SCOG made all those statements with ZERO, ZERO, ZERO facts to back up
SCOG.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 08:59 PM EST |
...SCO neglected to mention the following:
- AutoZone
- losing their motion to stay the DaimlerChrysler case and
SCO's remaining claim re timeliness' stipulated dismissal thereafter
- G2's
Motion to Intervene and to Unseal the Court's File in SCO v. IBM
- Novell
They were only Ordered to
sumarise the "status of the Utah litigation" (emphasis added). The
context indicates that it is just the IBM case, rather than both that and
Novell, which is intended here, so it seems a little unfair to characterise as
"neglect" their not mentioning anything about the other cases. Rather it is Red
Hat which has gone beyond the order.
Darkside, off to wash his hands after
having typed that subject line [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 09:29 PM EST |
I can agree to the whole case being bizarre, but you can
usually see what SCO are trying to do and where they are
trying to go with their arguments. In a strange way and
with applying some SCOlogic it somewhats makes sense.
The whole mess with reading from sealed mails in open
court and the details who in someway got into ms O'Garas
article are clues. Folowed up with G2 and the sealed
amended complaint. From all this and SCO's recent
blustering I would guess the IBM mails has to do with AIX
and would give SCO some kind of PR win and probably
temporary give the stocks a boost. Makes at lest as much
sense as everything else in this case.
The thing I can't see are how the AIX on Power are
different in anyway from other forms of AIX. IBM's UNIX
license allows IBM for including it in AIX, and I have not
seen anything in the UNIX license having to do with
processor architecture. So what are SCO trying to do, my
SCOlogic generator have now melted down trying to figure
this out?
KMJ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 10:23 PM EST |
SCO has until January 11, 2005 to file a claim of
appeal.
Set your calendars, Tuesday will be here
before you know it.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to
it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO would be fools to file an appeal... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 10:42 PM EST
- ROFLMAO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 05:23 AM EST
- ROFLMAO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:52 AM EST
- Irony - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Irony - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 03:20 PM EST
- Don't hold your breath... - Authored by: webster on Thursday, January 06 2005 @ 11:39 PM EST
- Tick Tick Tick - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 03:50 PM EST
|
Authored by: bstone on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:26 AM EST |
From the SCO letter:
On October 14, SCO filed a Motion to Amend its
complaint, seeking to add a single copyright claim relating to IBM's use of
infringing SCO code in its AIX product.
Is this the first time that it
has feen filed openly in court that the SCO third amended complaint was to add
this copyright charge? I believe it was generally assumed that this was what
was in their amended complaint from statements that Darl has made and perhaps
the email they tried to read in open court, but I don't recall the contents of
their sealed complaint being actually specified in a court document prior to
this letter.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 12:57 PM EST |
They were quick to condemn Linux users as "pirates" and thieves, but
they ignore the huge pile of evidence that SCO has no case and cannot prove
their case. WTF is wrong with the media?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 01:49 PM EST |
As PJ pointed out there have been nine additional depositions since the last
update dated October 4, 2004.
IBM had previously noticed these;
4. Philip Langer - Oct. 5
5. Greg Pettit - Oct. 7
6. John Maciaszek - Oct. 12
7. Jay Petersen - Oct. 14
8. Wolf Bauer - Oct. 19
9. Larry Gasparo - Oct. 21
10. Bob Bench - Oct. 26
11. Michael Davidson - Oct. 28
12. Blake Stowell - Nov. 2
13. Reg Broughton - Nov. 4
14. Chris Sontag - Nov. 9
15. Darl McBride - Nov. 16
There are 12 on that list so at least some of those depositions didn't happen
and presumably SCOG has taken some depositions as well. The list also ends on
November 16, six weeks before the letter was filed.
Seems like someone is dragging their feet.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AG on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 06:21 PM EST |
... that even if SCO wins all these uphill battles against IBM (which they
won't), Novell still waived all those rights and SCO cannot collect any damages.
Nobody seems to be paying much attention to this angle any more. The entire case
could be over any second. All we need is a ruling in the Novell case. I can't
imagine it takes this long for the judge to decide "well, ok, lets go to
trial". After all this time, it better be a dismissal with prejudice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: m_si_M on Friday, January 07 2005 @ 09:22 PM EST |
Apologies if this has already been mentioned before.
Today I tried
(out of curiousity) to find a way to buy a SCO "Unix IP License" from
www.sco.com. On http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html (notice the
URL!!!) I found the following:
"The license is available immediately
and can be purchased by credit card through our online store."
But
there is no online store. So the next step was to click the "Buy now" button. It
was linked to a 3 step guide. Step 1 included a link called "Please click here
to review the EULA." Clicking the link brought up another page where I could
read: "Please contact your SCO sales representative for a current copy of the
software license."
My question to the legal eagles here on Groklaw: Is
this (stock) fraud? Advertising -- in press releases and the FAQ
(http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html - notice the URL again!) -- a
"product" you can't buy? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|