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
SCO Goofed. DC's Memorandum: It Hasn't Used The Licensed Software for 7 Years.
Friday, April 30 2004 @ 02:00 AM EDT

Robert McMillan has an article on the DaimlerChrysler case. DaimlerChrysler sent two letters to SCO. They suggested they contact DC to see about dropping the lawsuit. Here's why: DaimlerChrysler is "not even using and has not used the licensed software for more than seven years."

Here is the complete filing for DaimlerChrysler, so you can read it in full. The Memorandum in Support, which tells the whole story, begins on page 11, followed by the two letters, beginning on page 33, as well as cases in support of their position. No wonder the IT department at DaimlerChrysler was on the floor laughing when news of the lawsuit arrived, with its allegations that DC had refused to provide SCO with a "certificate of compliance" over its use of Unix.

Here is what Mr. McBride said was the reason they were suing DaimlerChrysler when they first announced it, and you probably recall SCO sued AutoZone around the same time, saying SCO was copying the methods of the RIAA:

"The company was going to 're-educate' people about its rights and it expected to see the same fall in illegal usage that the RIAA has seen after its actions.

"At the same time, McBride announced the company had lodged a second lawsuit in Oakland against DaimlerChrysler for 'failure to respond' to SCO's demand that the company provide a certificate of compliance with its software licensing agreement. McBride later admitted that the DaimlerChrysler suit was based on the company's contribution toward Linux and that it was continuing to work on the open-source OS. 'They need to confirm one way or another,' McBride stated."

Now DC has disdainfully replied:

"'DaimlerChrysler has provided SCO with the only certification required under the licence demonstrating that DaimlerChrysler is not even using and has not used the licensed software for more than seven years,' the response stated."

Think this incredible blunder on SCO's part in choosing a victim to sue might have something to do with BayStar's angst?


  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 )