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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Red Hat Shows Up in the SCO Bankruptcy - Tells SCO, Not So Fast!
Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 06:38 PM EDT

Red Hat has speedily responded to SCO's Objection to Red Hat's claim:

06/23/2009 - 816 - Response / Red Hat, Inc.'s Preliminary Response to Debtor SCO Group, Inc.'s Objection to Claim of Red Hat, Inc. Filed by Red Hat, Inc.. (Millar, James) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

06/23/2009 - 817 - Certificate of Service (related document(s) 816 ) Filed by Red Hat, Inc.. (Millar, James) (Entered: 06/23/2009)

Red Hat is letting the court know that it cares about its litigation, it intends to vigorously pursue it as soon as the bankruptcy stay is lifted, and its claim should not be thrown off a cliff without giving Red Hat notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Here's the meat of it:
5. The Objection provides little more than a statement of the Debtor's intention to contest the Red Hat Claim at some point in the future. Obviously, it provides no basis for the Court at this juncture to disallow the Red Hat Claim.

6. In addition, the Debtor has not provided an objection deadline or hearing date to start the procedural events attendant to claims litigation. Rather, the Debtor suggests that it intends to proceed by adversary proceeding. Thus, a response to the Objection is apparently not required at present to preserve Red Hat's rights with respect to the Red Hat Claim.

7. Nevertheless, for the avoidance of doubt, Red Hat files this response to make clear its intent to pursue the Red Hat Claim if and when this matter moves forward. Red Hat should be given specific notice and an opportunity to participate in any proceedings that seek to disallow or in any way affect the Red Hat Claim.

So, what's an adversary proceeding? It's a trial, but in bankruptcy court. Blech. Here are the rules regarding adversary proceedings. And here are the kinds of things that end up as adversary proceedings:
Rule 7001. Scope of Rules of Part VII

An adversary proceeding is governed by the rules of this Part VII. The following are adversary proceedings:

(1) a proceeding to recover money or property, other than a proceeding to compel the debtor to deliver property to the trustee, or a proceeding under § 554(b) or § 725 of the Code, Rule 2017, or Rule 6002;

(2) a proceeding to determine the validity, priority, or extent of a lien or other interest in property, other than a proceeding under Rule 4003 (d);

(3) a proceeding to obtain approval under § 363(h) for the sale of both the interest of the estate and of a co-owner in property;

(4) a proceeding to object to or revoke a discharge;

(5) a proceeding to revoke an order of confirmation of a chapter 11, chapter 12, or chapter 13 plan;

(6) a proceeding to determine the dischargeability of a debt;

(7) a proceeding to obtain an injunction or other equitable relief, except when a chapter 9, chapter 11, chapter 12, or chapter 13 plan provides for the relief;

(8) a proceeding to subordinate any allowed claim or interest, except when a chapter 9, chapter 11, chapter 12, or chapter 13 plan provides for subordination;

(9) a proceeding to obtain a declaratory judgment relating to any of the foregoing; or

(10) a proceeding to determine a claim or cause of action removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1452.

Here's a form [PDF] you fill out, with instructions, and page one and two explains what an adversary proceeding is basically about.

None of this tells us what SCO has in mind. They like to surprise us. But if they intend an adversary proceeding, they are supposed to start it like this. But it makes no sense to me yet, I confess. Normally, you see a debtor bring an adversary proceeding against a creditor if, for example, the creditor doesn't respect the automatic stay. So we'll have to wait and see why Red Hat thinks this is what SCO intends. But I believe I have captured the essence of the big picture: SCO doesn't want to pay Red Hat anything either.

Update: Here's SCO's Objection to Red Hat's Claim [PDF], as text. Reading it, I get the picture, I think. SCO wants the bankruptcy judge to handle the Red Hat litigation, and since it filed similar objections to IBM, Novell and SUSE's claims, it wants to get out from under them too. That way they can go out and sue new people, I suppose, without all those damages slowing them down.

I know. Well, if you were SCO, wouldn't you want this bankruptcy judge to handle all your affairs? Could this really be the plan? They are the amazings, so why not? Their position is that the appeal of Novell will annoint SCO as the victors after all, and all the other cases will then fail against them, so the claims are worthless. SCOthink.

And I note that "for the sake of brevity" they don't attach all the Red Hat filings. So here they are, in Groklaw's Red Hat Timeline. SCO claims all it said was things that Red Hat and IBM folks say too, like "UNIX was a prewrite of Linux." So it concludes that Red Hat's Lanham Act claims have no value. And the hope, I gather, is that the bankruptcy court will so rule and presto, SCO skips away from Red Hat's law suit with no threat of any damages hanging over SCO. Anyway, Red Hat wasn't damaged, SCO concludes.

You can read the filings, and judge for yourself. For example, here's Red Hat's complaint [PDF]. SCO already told the Delaware court they hadn't said anything wrong, when they tried to get Red Hat's complaint dismissed. The court did not agree.

[ Update 2: I think I just figured out what the game is here, or more precisely why SCO wants to have these claims tossed out. If IBM's, Novell's, SUSE's and Red Hat's claims are all disallowed, as SCO is asking, then they can't vote against SCO's proposed sale. All that would be left on the list, as far as large creditors are concerned, would be what I might humorously call friends and relations of SCO, not likely to vote against any plan of SCO's.]

Here you go, SCO's Objection as text:

****************************

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

________________________

In re:

The SCO GROUP, INC. et al.,1

Debtors.

_______________________

Chapter 11

Case No. 07-11337 (KG)
(Jointly Administered)

Objection Deadline: TBD
Hearing Date: TBD

DEBTOR SCO GROUP, INC.'S OBJECTION TO
CLAIM OF RED HAT, INC.

For the reasons that follow, Debtor SCO Group, Inc. objects to the allowance of the claim filed by Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat"), claim #150 ("Red Hat Claim"), against the estate of SCO Group, Inc.

Introduction

1. On September 14, 2007 (the "Petition Date"), the Debtors each filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this Objection under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This matter is a core proceeding per 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

Background

3. On April 18, 2008, Red Hat filed the Red Hat Claim.

4. On August 4, 2003, Red Hat, Inc. filed a complaint against SCO Group, Inc., instituting a case which is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

under the case caption, Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., Civil No. 03-772. Red Hat asserts that the Linux operating system does not infringe on SCO Group, Inc.'s UNIX intellectual property rights and seeks a declaratory judgment for non-infringement of copyrights and no misappropriation of trade secrets. In addition, Red Hat claims that SCO Group, Inc. engaged in false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective business opportunities, trade libel and disparagement. Before the case could progress very far, the litigation was stayed by the court, which requested status reports every 90 days on the status of a related case, entitled SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Civ. No. 2:03CV-0294-DAK, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. If and when the stay is lifted, SCO Group, Inc. intends to vigorously defend the Red Hat lawsuit. In the alternative, and because the lawsuit is really at its inception, SCO Group, Inc. would be willing to have this Court try the claim in the format of a claim objection. In either case, however, SCO Group, Inc. will likely assert counterclaims against Red Hat, and therefore, if this Court agrees to hear this Objection on the merits, SCO Group, Inc. will file an adversary proceeding as a counterclaim to the Red Hat Claim.

5. SCO Group, Inc. rejects the notion that the Red Hat Claim holds any value. It is SCO Group, Inc.'s position that Red Hat's claims are not valid for several reasons: First, before SCO Group asserted its claims regarding Linux being an unauthorized derivative of UNIX against IBM, IBM had publicly announced, in an effort to promote and advance Linux into the enterprise market, that Linux was valuable because it is "derived from UNIX" and that "UNIX

2

was a pre-write of Linux". This is the basic point SCO Group, Inc. was making that forms the basis of Red Hat's claims. In other words, before SCO ever made any such statement, one of Red Hat's primary Linux customers and partners (and possibly the largest technology company in the world) had publicly stated the same thing that Red Hat asserts as the basis for its claim against SCO Group, Inc. This evidence shows that SCO Group, Inc.'s statements were truthful and known publicly before SCO Group, Inc. made its claims. Second, Red Hat's CEO publicly stated that SCO Group, Inc.'s allegations about Linux had caused "no slowdown whatsoever in the progress Linux was making." Therefore, Red Hat will not be able to prove that it has been damaged by any alleged statements by SCO Group, Inc.

Relief Requested

6. By this Objection, SCO Group, Inc. seeks entry of an order pursuant to section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure disallowing the Red Hat Claim.

7. Further, SCO Group, Inc. asserts that it did not engage in false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, deceptive trade practices, unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective business opportunities, trade libel or disparagement. Indeed, SCO Group, Inc. asserts that Red Hat is a debtor of SCO Group, Inc. and not the other way around.2

Applicable Authority

8. Code Section 502(b) provided in pertinent part that:

3

The court, after notice and a hearing, shall determine the amount of [a] claim in lawful currency of the United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such claim in such amount, except to the extent that ... such claim is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or unmatured.
11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1).

9. For the reasons set forth above, and for those reasons detailed in the Red Hat Litigation, SCO Group, Inc. submits that, pursuant to Code Section 502(b)(1) and Bankruptcy Rule 3007, the Court should disallow the Red Hat Claim.

Notice

10. Notice of this Objection has been given to the following parties, or in lieu thereof, to their counsel, if known: (i) the Office of the United States Trustee; (ii) parties requesting notice under Bankruptcy Rule 2002; and (iii) Red Hat. The Debtors submit that, in light of the nature of the relief requested, no other or further notice need be given.

No Prior Request

11. No prior objection has been made to this or any other court, other than in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, where the Red Hat Litigation is pending.

WHEREFORE, Debtor SCO Group, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court enter an order (i) disallowing the Red Hat Claim and (ii) granting it such other and further relief as is just and proper.

4

Dated: June 5, 2009

PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP

[signature]
Laura Davis Jones (Bar No. 2436)
James E. O'Neil (Bar No. 4042)
Kathleen P. Makowski (Bar No. 3648)
[address, phone, fax, emails]

and

BERGER SINGERMAN, P.A.
Arthur J. Spector
Douglas A. Bates
[address, phone, fax, emails]

Co-Counsel for the Debtors

1The Debtors and the last four digits of each of the Debtors' federal tax identification numbers are as follows: (a) The SCO Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Fed. Tax ID. #2823; and (b) SCO Operations, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Fed. Tax ID. #7393.

2 For the sake of brevity, SCO Group, Inc. has not attached the court papers in the Red Hat Litigation (the "Red Hat Court Papers") which provide greater detail for this Objection. Prior to any evidentiary hearing on, or estimation arising from, this Objection, SCO Group, Inc. will provide, under a notice of filing, the Red hat Court Papers that support the Objection.

5


  


Red Hat Shows Up in the SCO Bankruptcy - Tells SCO, Not So Fast! | 159 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 06:49 PM EDT
If any

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks discussions
Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 06:49 PM EDT
Please, quote the article's title.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, the off topic thread
Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 06:50 PM EDT
As usual.

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Adversary proceeding
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 07:18 PM EDT
Did Red Hat mean that SCO meant adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy sense?
Or in the wider legal sense?

That is, SCO intends (eventually, allegedly; more likely, never if SCO can help
it) to continue the Red Hat case after the other cases are concluded (the Red
Hat case was stayed pending the results of either Novell or IBM or both, I
forget the details). In "non-bankruptcy-court-speak", that would be
called "adversarial proceedings", would it not?

Is Red Hat merely saying that the Red Hat case is still out there, is still
likely to result in SCO owing a lot of money to Red Hat, and that SCO shouldn't
be able to weasel out of it by selling all the living parts of the company and
just keeping the zombie shell? Or do they truly mean "adversarial
proceedings" in the bankruptcy court sense of the term?

And if Red Hat means the latter, when and where did SCO say that? In their
filing on the sale? Can anyone find it in that impenetrable jungle?

IANAL. I don't know any answers. But I've got a lot of questions...

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Abusing the legal system
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 08:16 PM EDT
It's getting boring to mention, yet, this looks like more
abuse of the legal system by SCO

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Shows Up in the SCO Bankruptcy - Tells SCO, Not So Fast!
Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 08:25 PM EDT
What's the deal with leaving a motion hanging like that, with unspecified Objection Deadline and Hearing Date?
Relief Requested
6. By this Objection, SCO Group, Inc. seeks entry of an order pursuant to section 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure disallowing the Red Hat Claim.

So SCo is asking for an order but not now? Some time in the future, an objection deadline/hearing date will be set but in the meantime SCO gets to
assert[s] that Red Hat is a debtor of SCO Group, Inc. and not the other way around.?


I think it's good Red Hat spoke up now rather than letting this hang in the air, like an unwelcomed smell, unchallenged. Let's hope IBM and Novell file something similar as well soon. You know, just to clear the air.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, will Gross yank away IBM from Kimball?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 09:36 PM EDT

This is what SCO has been dreaming of all along, shopping for a more amenable
judge. If he does this for Red Hat, will he also do it for IBM and Auto Zone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Shows Up in the SCO Bankruptcy - Tells SCO, Not So Fast!
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Tuesday, June 23 2009 @ 10:26 PM EDT

SCO wants the bankruptcy judge to handle the Red Hat litigation.

So, can a bankruptcy judge take over that sort of litigation? Isn't it out of their area of expertise?

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

[ Reply to This | # ]

3. On April 18, 2008, Red Hat filed the Red Hat Claim.
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 05:00 AM EDT
I don't see an entry for the "Red Hat Claim" in the BK Timeline, nor
the Red Hat Timeline. Do we have this? Or know what it's about?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Shows Up in the SCO Bankruptcy - Tells SCO, Not So Fast!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 05:00 AM EDT
If that colloquial usage is the case here (and it seems likely, given the
presence of the "the"), then the phrase PJ uses should at least
capitalise "Amazings" (and most likely "The", too).
And after a bit of googling, it seems PJ spelt it "incorrectly". So
perhaps more accurately would be:

"They are The Amazin's"

That at least should then spur those people not in the know (ie. most of the
world) to perhaps look up what "The Amazin's" refers to, rather than
assume it's a hideous abuse of grammar!

[ Reply to This | # ]

One thing about this case for sure
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 06:32 AM EDT
is that future generations of law students all over the US will be using this
whole sorry saga as a reference text when learing the lawyers art of
"Prevarocation, Delay & Obsfucation" that will become mandatory in
Law School.

Notwithstanding that most of the arguments that SCO keep peddling are plainly
untrue they continue to get away with virtual perjury with all these motions and
denials etc I am amazed that the judges involved still let them peddle these
'lies'. For example, where was the judgement given that Red Hat is a debtor of
SCO? Should it be a 'possible debtor pending the outcome of an outstanding case'
which is closer to the truth than their bold statement. Or, is the case where
lawyers can get away with saying anything they want in their motions even if
they are blatantly untrue?
The wonders of the US legal system continue to amaze me. I'm very glad I don't
live there any longer.


---

Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Bankruptcy - Not So Fast!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 08:59 AM EDT
I've been wondering if there is a valid objection for Novell, IBM et.al. to
object to the sale on the basis of SCO's stated intention to continue the
litigation, after a legal judgmentproofing.

This seems to me to be an end around of the consequences of their own actions.

In fact when SCO filed for bankruptcy they had sufficient assets to pay all of
their then existing debts (except for judgements). Their assets are only
insufficient now because of the cost of the bankruptcy.

It seems that if Norris and his backers want to benefit from the litigation they
should simply fund SCO and take their chances in court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOlogic ..
Authored by: emacsuser on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 09:23 AM EDT
'It is SCO Group, Inc's position that Red Hat's claims are not valid for several reasons: First, before SCO Group asserted its claims regarding Linux being an unauthorized derivative of UNIX against IBM, IBM had publicly announced, in an effort to promote and advance Linux into the enterprise market, that Linux was valuable because it is "derived from UNIX" and that at "UNIX was a pre-write of Linux"'

Did IBM really state that Linux was "derived from UNIX" and does SCO own UNIX or even A version of Unix and is Linux derived from UNIX or any version of Unix?

"This is the basic point SCO Group, Inc. was making that forms the basis of Red Hat's claims. In other words, before SCO ever made any such statement, one of Red Hat's primary Linux customers and partners (and possibly the largest technology company in the world) had publicly stated the same thing that Red Hat asserts as the basis for its claim against SCO Group, Inc."

What exactly is Red Hat claiming that alleged prior statements by IBM impact this?

"This evidence shows that SCO Group, Inc.'s statements were truthful and known publicly before SCO Group, Inc. made its claims"

How can alleged statements by IBM and/or Red Hat have any bearing on the truth or lack of it on statements uttered by SCO. It's true your honor not because we can prove it, but because the other fella once said bla, bla, bla ... :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bum's rush and 2nd bite factors
Authored by: hardmath on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 09:24 AM EDT
SCO's panache in asking that a statutory 10 day filing deadline be waived
(against Red Hat's interest) by the bankruptcy judge, after SCO's multi-year
delay of trial vs. Red Hat in the US District Court of Delaware, is
"amazing" no matter how spelt. SCO wants to give Red Hat (and other
creditors, no doubt) the bum's rush.

As PJ points out, SCO is basically asking for a second bite at the apple on
issues where they have already made and lost motions before the same US District
Court.

This seems like a clever (too clever) tactic on SCO's part. Having already gone
to the brink by pushing out an ill-documented, ill-timed plan for asset sales,
they assume an air of compelling "need" for everyone else to sacrifice
their opportunity to ask the important question: How will this affect me?

regards, hm


---
"Mail-order schools lure fledgling code jockeys with promises of big bucks and
excitement. But a new survey finds hirings are rare." Computerworld, 12/11/95

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did I miss something?
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 11:44 AM EDT
According to SCO, Red Hat said Linux is "derived from UNIX" and that
"UNIX was a pre-write of Linux". But in the document they said IBM
said this. I don't see how they get from IBM saying something to Red Hat saying
it just becaue IBM is a customer. I assume this is a typical SCO equation
(similar to 1+1=3.573725 or something like that). What gives?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I guess Judge Gross might finally get to see the real SCOG....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 11:57 AM EDT

In SCOG's proposed sale plan:

The Debtors will retain certain Mobility applications, their cash, their accounts receivable, and their litigation and related claims against International Business Machines Corporation, Novell, Inc., AutoZone Corporation, Red Hat and certain Linux users which are not material customers of unXis (excluding certain large-scale users of Linux servers) that are claimed to have infringed against UNIX copyrights.
In this filing:
Red Hat asserts that the Linux operating system does not infringe on SCO Group, Inc.'s UNIX intellectual property rights and seeks a declaratory judgment for non-infringement of copyrights and no misappropriation of trade secrets.
SCO Group, Inc. rejects the notion that the Red Hat Claim holds any value.
before SCO Group asserted its claims regarding Linux being an unauthorized derivative of UNIX against IBM, IBM had publicly announced, in an effort to promote and advance Linux into the enterprise market, that Linux was valuable because it is "derived from UNIX" and that "UNIX was a pre-write of Linux".
So... SCOG is trying to argue that a statement made by IBM - which it must be noted does not include any reference to "stolen IP" - covers SCOG claiming that Linux is an "aunauthorized derivative" of "SCOG's Unix property".

So... what do we see.

  1. We see SCOG admitting they have (from their point of view) a litigation claim against Linux with regards infringing SCOG's copyrights.
  2. We see a RedHat claim asking the Court (not the BK Court, just the Legal Court in general) to decide that Linux does not infringe SCOG's Unix copyrights.
  3. We finally see SCOG stating RedHat's claim does not hold water.
Is SCOG really trying to get the BK Judge to issue some kind of PSJ against RedHat without going through discovery?

Wow. I certainly hope when RedHat files it's response it includes Judge Kimball's statement that SCOG has astonishingly failed to produce any kind of reasonably credible evidence to back up their public claims of millions of lines of copied code.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Critical MisQuote?
Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 02:22 PM EDT
In para 4 of it's filing, SCO makes the following assertion:-

Red Hat asserts that the Linux operating system does not infringe on SCO Group, Inc.'s UNIX intellectual property rights and seeks a declaratory judgment for non-infringement of copyrights and no misappropriation of trade secrets.

What actually happened was that SCO held a briefing on July 22nd, 2003, to which it invited a number of Red Hat's institutional investors. In the briefing it made claims that Red Hat Linux infringed some of SCO's rights. In their opening brief to the Court, on August 4th, 2003, Red Hat asserted (it's linked from this article) that SCO knew or should have known that the claims made in that conference call were false.

Red Hat then filed their August 4th Motion with the Court (Judge Kimball) asking for a declaratory judgment that Red Hat Linux did not infringe any of the rights then being asserted by SCO.

With this latest filing, SCO are mis-characterizing the nature of Red Hat's complaint by broadening their claims. When you think about it, it's nonsense. How could Red Hat attest to whether or not Linspire infringed any of SCO's Intellectual Property? Or Debian? Or ubuntu? Or Mandriva?

In the past we've often highlighted shifts like this as a cleverly planned ruse on SCO's part to mislead the Court by subtly misleading the Judge. In this particular case I am more inclined to suspect that this isn't part of a mad conspiracy, merely a reflection of the fact that the exchanges happened pretty much six years ago, and were obviously being managed by BSF at that time.

Even so, I do hope that Novell make it very clear to the Judge that this is another example of SCO being sloppy with the facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Shows Up in the SCO Bankruptcy - Tells SCO, Not So Fast!
Authored by: gvc on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 08:46 PM EDT
Where is Red Hat's original claim?

I can't find it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat wasn't actually damaged
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 24 2009 @ 09:14 PM EDT
To quote the filing: "Therefore, Red Hat will not be able to prove that it
has been damaged by any alleged statements by SCO Group, Inc.".

I know, for a fact, that a key decision was made to migrate to Windows within a
U.S. Federal organization that would have resulted in $300,000+ of RHEL licenses
principally because those advocating for Windows played the SCO card during the
AoA (Analysis of Alternatives) phase of the project.

--- nyarlathotep

[ 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 )