|
|
| Lamlaw on SCO's Contract Claims |
 |
|
Monday, January 24 2005 @ 05:59 AM EST
|
I guess what I like about Lewis Mettler's
Lamlaw is that he doesn't use weasel words. Unlike a lot of lawyers, what he writes is plain English and there is no doubt what he intends to mean. I know some of you have said there are too many stories this weekend, but that's what snow does to me. And I think you'll be interested to know what he predicts, post the discovery order. I am highlighting the part that particularly struck me: "I know that SCO stills clings to the hope that the IBM case will someday reach the trial in court. But that does not appear to be likely. Getting past those motions for Summary Judgment are going to take a whole lot more than simply begging for more discovery. And [the] only way you defeat a motion for Summary Judgment is by outlin[ing the evidence you have that if believed by the jury will support a decision in your favor. Failing that there will be no trial on those issues. So it is likely although not certain that the IBM will be gutted almost as badly as the DCC case before a jury can even be summoned. . . .
"Trade Secrets are gone. There never were any patent claims. The Novell case may very well nix any hope that SCO has over any copyright issues (since they most likely will be found to NOT be holding the copyrights anyway). And that means the only claim left for SCO is based upon contract law. And that is looking very bad for SCO.
"Even if the wording in the contract between AT&T and IBM favored SCO's position (and it does not), both AT&T and Novell pretty much waived or canceled any such claims by way of their actions over the years. And rare indeed are the contracts cases where a third or fourth or fifth successor in interest in the contract is able to impose upon the other party an understanding that runs contrary to the predecessors and the practice throughout the execution of the contract. That is just not likely to happen. I put SCO's chances in succeeding on the contract issues somewhere between nil and zero. . . .
"Strange it is that SCO was a direct beneficiary of the effort by IBM to contribute technology to Linux. And they killed their own goose. It may not have been golden. But it was a goose. Now all they have is a dead bird. And when these cases finish up by eating the meat off the carcass, the bones will be buried somewhere. Or simply discarded out back. Between nil and zero, the man said.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: chris_bloke on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 06:26 AM EST |
He doesn't pull his punches, does he! Very well done. ;-)
Now, I wonder if anyone in the media will pick this up ?
cheers,
Chris [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chris_bloke on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 06:28 AM EST |
| Where and what... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 06:44 AM EST
- Corrections - Authored by: a_t on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 06:52 AM EST
- Corrections - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:28 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: chris_bloke on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 06:29 AM EST |
| <A HREF="http://www.example.com">Clickable link</A> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 06:55 AM EST |
While I like what he says, I feel obliged to repeat a point that I've made
before. He doesn't give any credentials on his site, and only obliquely implies
that he's a lawyer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- But is he an authority? - Authored by: Zyphyr on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 07:13 AM EST
- Most definitely authorative - Authored by: thorpie on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 08:19 AM EST
- But is he an authority? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 08:35 AM EST
- But is he an authority? - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 11:24 AM EST
- "This is the web page for the Law Office of..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST
- I don't know about this guy...... - Authored by: Fredric on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST
- Esquire defined - Authored by: Juggler9 on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:50 PM EST
- But is he an authority? - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 02:30 PM EST
- But are you authority on authority? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 09:06 PM EST
- Yes he's an authority... - Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, January 25 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: PSaltyDS on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 07:48 AM EST |
"...too many stories this weekend, but that's what snow does to
me."
Then may we have a few more blizzards
please!
:-)
To the tune of "Let It Snow":
Oh
the FUD outside is frightful
But the facts are so delightful
And since
she's no place to go
Beat'n SCO, watch her go, slamm'n SCO!
They
don't show signs of stopping
Cause they've got some stock for
pumping
Watch as their lawyers get dirty and low
Beat'n SCO, watch her
go, slamm'n SCO!
When they finaly get the kiss of death
There'll be
a dance in a slinky red dress
As Darl hides the cuffs with his
coat
Beat'n SCO, watch her go, slamm'n SCO!
Their claims are slowly
dying
As the truth counters all the lying
And PJ hunkers down in the
snow
Beat'n SCO, watch her go, slamm'n SCO!
---
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced." - Geek's
Corrolary to Clarke's Law
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 08:21 AM EST |
Non informative synopsis of case amusingly compares it to Dickens:
Link
<
br>---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 08:30 AM EST |
"And rare indeed are the contracts cases where a third or fourth or fifth
successor in interest in the contract is able to impose upon the other party an
understanding that runs contrary to the predecessors and the practice throughout
the execution of the contract."
Rare indeed. Can anybody out there think of a single such case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tz on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 11:06 AM EST |
Lest we forget, IBM has noted that SCO has infringed on the GPLed and
copyrighted code IBM placed in Linux. So after getting SCO's half gutted, will
they then proceed on finding out how much SCO owes IBM for infringement?
Assuming SCO isn't bankrupt by then.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Easy - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 02:05 PM EST
- Easy - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 07:34 PM EST
- Easy - Authored by: arch_dude on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 08:56 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 12:35 PM EST |
The poor goose is dieing of abuse and neglect. After a certain point, the runt
of the litter won't survive without a lot of outside help.
OK Sue me for mixing metaphors.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 12:41 PM EST |
This is a bit OT, but I'm wondering if anyone can enlighten me on this. Judge
Wells's discovery order places a huge burden on IBM and it's impossible to
comply with it fully ("all versions and changes" could be interpreted
to mean every single commit). She is also under delusion that this is something
IBM can do easily. Question: can IBM go to judge Kimball and say "this is
ridiculous, overly burdensome and (if CC8 is granted) irrelevant to the
case". Can they at least make SCO pay for digging up every single version
of AIX and Dynix? Also, when is CC8 scheduled to be heard? And WTF is taking him
so long to rule on CC10? This soap opera is getting rather annoying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ak on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 01:04 PM EST |
Pamela Jones writes:
he doesn't use weasel words
That
is true. Lewis Mettler writes:
It was just all about harassing a
Linux customer hoping to cause other Linux customers to pay extortion money to
SCO.
But that is not the full story. The McBride-gang also
manipulated the stock by creating the impression that they are able to collect
extortion money. They still try to keep that impression alive.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 24 2005 @ 07:30 PM EST |
Mettler says...
I put SCO's chances in succeeding on the contract issues
somewhere between nil and zero. It is sort of like arguing whether plus zero
and negative zero is the same value. Of course, in the binary system there is
only one value of that type and it is "zero" without a sign. Better to make
available one more notch at the high or low end of numbers than to represent
zero in two insignificant ways. In other words, get on with your
life.
Just to clarify, his observation is correct for binary integers,
but not for binary floating point numbers.
The most popular floating point
format, IEEE-854 (and its predecessor, IEEE-754) contains a specific sign bit
that can be used to indicate negative 0. Normally, mathematical operations that
use these formats will normalize -0 into +0, however, this isn't a property of
the binary format itself.
His assumption that there is no difference
between nil and zero is correct for every day speech, however in many computer
languages nil (and its modern counterpart "null") is a token that identifies
empty objects or empty pointers that contain NO value, which is distinct from
containing the value 0. Depending on language and context, nil may or may not
compare equal to 0, or may even generate an error to the effect that the
comparison is invalid.
I shouldn't fault him for knowing less than I do
about computer science, but I find myself in the odd place of agreeing with
Mettler's conclusions but not entirely sure that his methods for reaching them
were sound. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 28 2005 @ 08:25 AM EST |
Just like everybody else, it's difficult not to ridicule SCO and their
"masters" for ever conceiving such a badly advised course of action,
to take on the whole world through the US courts.
Or was it?
Remember the fundamental rule to see things from the other party's perspective?
Perhaps the purpose of the suit has still been worth it. Well, not to SCO but
whomever is in control of SCO. In a course of just 2 years they have achieved or
is about to achieve the following result:
* there is no copyright for core of Unix technology
* there are no protectable IP rights for core Unix technology
* IBM have relinquished patent protection for a wast majority of their
inventions to anyone that goes out and does open source development
Hence, is it possible that summa summarum, that this has been a profitable
endevour by anyone who wants to take core Unix technology and merge it with
their own products? It won't cost them anything, because they won't need a
license for it. They can't be sued for taking someone elses IP rights and using
it in their products.
Perhaps someone who has been struggling for years to achieve this with their own
products and consistently failing their customers?
They might go on and challenge IBMs patents. Is it legal to give unqualified
assurances patent rights will be waived if certain conditions are met, and what
are those conditions? Is there not an element of discrimination against other
market players that IBM are abusing the rights they have received through the
cover of patent law?
Maybe these assurances can be tweaked to meet a purpose not originally intended
by IBM. And when IBM renegades, be challenged and defeated in court?
Perhaps everyone ridiculing SCO and that other large adversary or IBM should
consider that ultimately this was not about winning the suit, but the temporary
(FUD vs linux) and permanent (see above) side effects of pursuing this in the
courts?
Per Olausson
London, UK[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
