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
Parsing the New Lawsuits
Monday, March 08 2004 @ 02:41 AM EST

I'm deep in some Project Monterey research, which I should finish later today, barring breaking news, but in the meanwhile, you don't want to miss Mark Radcliff and Eben Moglen explaining the two new lawsuits, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler. Radcliff points out some difficulties SCO faces, thanks to Novell, and Eben tries to actually explain the cases in some detail, and it is a very thick soup indeed:

"If the legal issues were similar, it would be within the discretion of the federal district courts to ship the common issues to multidistrict litigation for resolution, Moglen said. . . .

"While all this litigation, if pursued all the way to resolution in the various courts, could drag on for years, Moglen pointed out that for that to happen 'SCO would have to have an infinite amount of time to remain in being. I have to also point out that the parties being sued here by SCO are its present and former customers.' . . .

"If AutoZone or DaimlerChrysler does not settle quickly, then SCO's theory of action has a real problem because you 'cannot sell licenses when you are in litigation against firm A to prove that you own what you are trying to license; and you are in litigation against firm B for needing a license and nobody has settled with you and people are saying that if you don't own what you are selling then I don't need to buy it.'

"'And if your infringement action if I don't buy your license isn't any good, then I shouldn't buy, and so I'm going to sit and wait. What judge is going to say I was intentionally infringing when it wasn't clear if the licensor owned what he was trying to license and was in litigation against somebody else who was defending that litigation and saying there was no infringement,' Moglen said.

"'You now have a little company suing four immense companies in different places on very different claims and supposing that it can take all of this on at once. My advice to potential and/or existing Linux customers who might be worried about being sued by SCO is that the lesson here is that your greatest danger of that is to be a SCO customer,' he said."

What is significant, to me, is that SCO seems to have deliberately brought cases that *can't* be lumped together for efficiency's sake. Perhaps they have no reason to desire a quick resolution.

French Groklaw

I thought you also might like to know that Groklaw has a French edition now, and a Spanish one is being prepared. Here's French Groklaw, traduit de l'anglais par Denis-Carl Robidouxin, in case you'd prefer to read the articles in French. Merci beaucoup, Denis-Carl!


  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 )