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.


To read comments to this article, go here
Red Hat News - Lehman Brothers Threatened by SCO
Tuesday, February 17 2004 @ 11:38 AM EST

A faithful Groklaw run-to-the-courthouse volunteer has just returned from the Delaware courthouse. Some time this afternoon we should have the actual papers from Red Hat's filing. Basically, Red Hat is letting the judge know that SCO didn't tell her the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For one thing, Lehman Brothers, a customer of Red Hat, got two threatening letters from SCO, threatening legal action over alleged copyright infringement, and their reply is attached to the motion. Clearly, they let her know, there is an imminent threat from SCO, making this a "judiciable controversy", an element they must prove to avoid dismissal of their action. For one thing, McBride's statements at Harvard that SCO would begin suing end users on February 18, Red Hat points out in its documents, is proof of an imminent threat. He copied down the "Don't Contact Us Again" letter by hand and here is his report.

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

Just got back from courthouse. I ordered a copy of the docket and hopefully should get it this afternoon, scan it, send it along. In the meantime I jotted down a summary of the motion as well as a letter from an SCO customer to SCO telling them to bug off. I copied that in its entirety (I hope accurately).

OK, here's my summary.

Red Hat stated that SCO sent a letter to one of Red Hat's customers (Lehman Brothers Holding) accusing them of infringing copyrights. There were two letters, the second threatening legal action. The customer advised both SCO and Red Hat that it is looking to Red Hat for a response. (letter transcribed below).

Red Hat also said that the "justiciable controversy" was also confirmed by public statements made by McBride last week (motion filed 2/11) that they will begin suing end user customers by February 18th. (I assume they were talking about the Harvard speech.)

Lehman Bros' response to SCO was that it purchased Linux products and services from Red Hat.

At one point Red Hat referred to this case as an "Emperor without clothes."

Redhat also stated that SCO statements contradict earlier representations by SCO to this court.

Red Hat requested the court to allow this information to be submitted in further support of their Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.

Now the Lehman Brothers' letter (from their legal counsel)... hopefully without any transcribing mistakes:

"SCO's letter of December 19, 2003 to Mr. Richard Fuld and of January 16, 2004 to Mr. Jonathan Beyman (attached) have been forwarded to me to reply.

"The issue you raised concerning use of Linux software have been directed to our vendor, Red Hat, Inc., for a response. Understandably, they are the appropriate receipient and are better positioned than we to respond to your issues and concerns.

"Please direct any further correspondance on the subject to Red Hat. To the limited extent you must communicate with Lehman Brothers in the future (admittedly unlikley, given our request herein), please direct any such communications directly to my attention."


  View Printable Version


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 )