Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DaimlerChrysler Looks for Dismissal of SCO Suit

Posted by michael on Thu Apr 29, 2004 12:20 PM
from the just-beat-it dept.
Ian Atkins writes "DaimlerChrysler has told SCO where it can stick its lawsuit. In a filing in Michigan, the car company has said not only does it not have to give SCO the information it asked for, but that it hasn't used the software SCO claims rights over - for seven years. It has asked the judge to throw the whole thing out of court. Another bad for SCO and its MS-backed Linux crusade it would seem. Full details on Techworld here." Reader Eggplant62 notes that Groklaw is also covering the story, and noting that SCO has dropped their claim that the GPL is unconstitutional.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by everyone involved in every one of SCOs cases. They really aren't newsworthy.

    Judges orders, warrants, and decisions from the bench are worth noting. But legal filings are just the gears of the bloated legal system in action.

    The first thing any lawyer does in almost any case is file for dismissal on some obscure precedent.

    • by Progman3K (515744) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:26PM (#9009023)
      >The first thing any lawyer does in almost any case is file for dismissal on some obscure precedent.

      Not having used SCO Unix for seven years isn't really an obscure point, is it?
        • by Dr. Evil (3501) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:47PM (#9009295)

          Some legal guy will probably blither that it's about burden of proof. At least in criminal matters.

          Police prosecutor: "...the accused was seen walking out of a Best Buy with a DVD player. He was confronted by security, whereupon he said 'I am not the man you're looking for. There is no DVD player. Move along'. Security inexplicably let him go."

          Accused: "I havent even watched a movie for 7 years so I dont even have a dvd player. I am not the man you're looking for. There is no DVD player."

          • You see, they *are* being fought by the rules. You just happen to not like them. The legal system has indeed become ponderous, but things are playing out in a way that is to be expected.
            • >they *are* being fought by the rules.

              Yes, but obviously not in the spirit which the system of laws was intended.

              It's EXACTLY that kind technical hair-splitting that is cheapening humanity in general; no one wants to play fair.

              And there are probably slimy counter-counter-tactics that each party will resort to before this is over, but in the end there won't be any true accountability.

              You're right, I *don't* like it.
              • Anybody who has followed the brain numbing briefs files over and over again in this case realizes by now that the american legal system is a joke.

                I have never been interested in the law before before this case and I have done my best to keep up to date by reading groklaw and let me tell you no human should be a witness to such absolute and utter stupidity.

                Motion after motion of silly documents, delay after delay. How long has the SCO case been going on? The judge isn't even close to making a decision yet
                • by Progman3K (515744) on Thursday April 29 2004, @01:31PM (#9009919)
                  I hear you.

                  But you know, there has been a small positive side in this for you; you've obviously developed your understanding of law and legal proceedings.

                  I know it's a sort of sad-education, but what can I say, you'll have to distill the good that you can out of it.

                  Rock on, killjoe.
        • To be fair, I made a typo in my orginal post - the article says Daimler-Chrysler hasn't used Linux for seven years.

          Same difference though.

          On an interesting aside, *I* HAVE used SCO Unix (back in '92, I believe), and both times I did, it proved to foreshadow today's events:

          Being a COMPLETE newbie with anything *nix in those days, I was nonetheless given the task to shut down and restart a SCO Unix server.

          Being clueless (I admit), I fiddled around until I simply got fed-up and pressed the reset button on
    • by wookyhoo (700289) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:29PM (#9009045) Homepage
      Oh c'mon, it is news, and for those of us who have a big stake in our beloved Operating System, it's always nice to see further holes being smashed into SCO's ridiculous claims.

      And this one in particular... to have SCO get rid of their patent claims... I'm waiting on a new letter to congress rescinding their previous outrageous unconstitutional hand-waving. I'm not going to hold my breath though ;)
    • Slashdot's core readership is significantly biased towards Linux use. We have a strong interest in the case. If you don't, another news site might be more in line with your interests. It's not like there aren't a great many to choose from.
  • drop their claim? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:24PM (#9008994)
    How can they make claims and drop them like that? No consequences??

    There are corps that weren't choosing linux or delaying programs because of this .. there were real losses. It's just wrong that you can make risk free arbitrary claims and accusations as scare and/or FUD to try to advance your agenda .. without worry of consequences.
    • by Maestro4k (707634) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:35PM (#9009115) Journal
      • How can they make claims and drop them like that? No consequences??

        There are corps that weren't choosing linux or delaying programs because of this .. there were real losses. It's just wrong that you can make risk free arbitrary claims and accusations as scare and/or FUD to try to advance your agenda .. without worry of consequences.

      Actually there can be consquences, and there still may be. DaimlerChrysler can turn around and sue SCO for the corporate equivalent of defamation of character, etc. Filing a lawsuit without merit is always risky because you can be counter-sued. Given SCO's actions in the past I doubt they'll sensably drop this and will probably force DC to counter-sue them to get rid of the bad (and false) press SCO is causing them.
    • Re:drop their claim? (Score:5, Informative)

      by budgenator (254554) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:54PM (#9009382) Journal
      DC has basicaly said "Your Honor tell them to go away, never come back and have them pay us for our lawyers' fees on the way out; because they have no case, know they have no case, and are just pretending that they do."
        • The American legal system is exactly like a couple of five year olds arguing.

          Thank you. At least someone else out there can see the judicial system for what is really is.
          This country is in need of a revolution. Or at least a rewriting of the Constitution. This bullshit legal stuff has got to go.

          Regardless, I think it's great that DC told SCO to basically go phuck themselves. I think a point would be made if every company SCO filed suit against did the same, even though their wishes might not be ca
    • by Embedded Geek (532893) on Thursday April 29 2004, @01:04PM (#9009530) Homepage
      Groklaw had an interesting bit:

      The WHEREFORE clause asks that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that the court award DaimlerChrysler costs and attorneys' fees. (emphasis added)

      IANAL, so I do not know if this is standard for dimissing with prejudice (heck, it might be the defintion of dismissing with prejudice, for all I know), but it seems like DaimlerChrysler isn't going to let them go without some consequences. It might not be a big dent compared to a defamation suit, but it's a start. Also, every drop of red that SCO shows in its annual reports tied to judgements going against them (as opposed to "cost of doing business" in launching the claims) looks worse for the stockholders.

      We can only hope those stockholders eventually see sense, since the executive team doesn't.

      • Dismissed with prejudice means 'You don't have a case, and cannot possibly ever have a case, so you can't even file again about this.'.

        Whereas dismissal without prejudice means 'They cannot prove the case, but they may, indeed, have one, once they get their act together and file in the right court or under the correct statue or whatever.'

        (Of course, you can appeal either of these.)

        Dismissal with prejudice is what judges do to people who sue the government for alien mind control.

  • "Another bad for SCO and its MS-backed Linux crusade it would seem."

    Exactly what does that add to this story?

  • by nizo (81281) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:27PM (#9009028) Homepage Journal
    Tune in every Tuesday and watch Darl as he tries to survive in the courts. Next season don't miss the "Darl Survivor II" premier episode where he gets strip searched prior to entering prison. Soon after he meets his new roomate Bubba, who introduces himself and then says, "I like your butt Darly boy".
    • in this year's premiere episode, Darl is locked out of the prison library for filing ten frivolous lawsuits a day against individual farmers, seeking damages from all those who supplied rotten maggots in his gruel. "I require fresh maggots," he claims. other inmates on Block 27 promise Darl they can grow fresh maggots in his arms and legs....
    • Soon after he meets his new roomate Bubba...


      No, his new roommate is not named Bubba. His name is Ben Dover. I think Bubba is his nick name.

  • Yay (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mkro (644055) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:28PM (#9009038)
    Now, I don't know much about "The Market", but I know what this curve means. [yahoo.com] Hah.
    • Re:Yay (Score:3, Insightful)

      This one [yahoo.com] is actually more interesting. SCO Are almost back to where they started from before they clained the owned the planet.
    • Re:Yay (Score:3, Interesting)

      Yeah, but if you look at this one [yahoo.com] you'll see that they're still better off than they were a year ago.
    • by Animats (122034) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:42PM (#9009227) Homepage
      SCOX hit a new low for 2004 today.

      That big bump in March seems to have been SCO's announced stock buyback. So they blew a big chunk of their remaining cash, and the stock went back down anyway.

      It doesn't get much worse than this:

      • Product sales are zilch.
      • Intellectual property sales are zilch.
      • Their VCs want their money back.
      • They're in litigation with four different Fortune 1000 companies. And not doing well.
      • Their CEO is widely viewed as an annoying loudmouth.
      • The stock is in a screaming dive.
      • They're widely hated.
      The only upside is that there are no criminal charges or securities-fraud litigation. Yet. That may come, if insiders enriched themselves during the stock runup.
  • because.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by MasTRE (588396) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:30PM (#9009062)
    We're the Mercedes-Benz of.. Mercedes-Benz, SCO bitches!
  • by pumpknhd (575415) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:31PM (#9009071)
    Groklaw has posted a text [groklaw.net] version of DaimlerChrysler's response to SCO's complaint.
  • by WwWonka (545303) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:34PM (#9009109)
    DaimlerChrysler has told SCO where it can stick its lawsuit.

    Truly now is that the way they did it?

    More than likely it was:

    Dear Sir or Madaam,
    Put forth hereth we knowth thus blah blah blah


    Now to tell SCO where to stick it would be more like:

    Listen up you stupid idiots,
    We have no idea what the fuck you are talking about so piss off and crawl back into your hole and die.

    With love,
    DaimlerChrysler
    • Once the Babelfish people get that Lawyerese-to-English translator working you'll see that this is exactly what they did. Lawyers just take longer to say things like this because they get paid, very handsomely, by the word.
  • by aelbric (145391) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:41PM (#9009207)
    Look at the bottom. The last sentance reads "SCO declined to comment"

    I never thought Daryl would shut up.
  • by jtownatpunk.net (245670) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:42PM (#9009224)
    Does DaimlerChrysler have some sort of OnStar system in their cars? If so, they should remotely disable all vehicles registered to SCO execs.
  • SCO + RIAA (Score:4, Funny)

    by superpulpsicle (533373) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:46PM (#9009281)
    If SCO and RIAA got together, they'd have the highest expense of lawyers while offering no service or product to the public.

    I thought M$ had good lawyers, man these two companies can sue any one of any status.
  • by dacarr (562277) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:52PM (#9009346) Homepage Journal
    In watching the whole debacle going on with SCO, it concerns me that, in the end, beating SCO back down with the brickbat of the law has been little more than an uninteresting problem. Enough resource applied to the problem and it just kind of goes away.
  • by drizst 'n drat (725458) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:53PM (#9009360)
    SCO's stock [cnn.com] has been taking a pounding lately and as of now (1352 EST is under $6.50 a share. If you follow the trend .. they are slowly but surely crashing. Now the question is going to be ... when?
  • "Unclean Hands" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Embedded Geek (532893) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:54PM (#9009385) Homepage
    I read the Groklaw summary and stumbled across the term "Unclean Hands" [law.com] in the list of defenses that DaimlerChrysler has put forth.

    Man, I knew some judges were sticklers about proper decorum in the courtroom, defendants wearing suits, etc. but this is pretty extreme, don't you think?

  • by stienman (51024) <[moc.scisabu] [ta] [sivada]> on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:59PM (#9009456) Homepage Journal
    Previously we reported that SCO was scraping the bottom of the barrel. We must now print a retraction:

    It appears as though SCO is in fact not scraping the bottom of the barrel...any longer. They have broken through the bottom and are working themselves into a barrel sized pit. The barrel was located near an outhouse, and so now you can see where they are coming up with all this...stuff.

    -Adam
  • by Sebby (238625) on Thursday April 29 2004, @01:05PM (#9009545)
    Why does everyone say that?

    The way I see it, it should be called 'Pulling a GraceNote' - ie steal from contributers and sue frivrously. It seems to me SCO learn a lesson from GraceNote...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 29 2004, @03:04PM (#9011474)
    The SCO Group to sell Pre-loaded Unix PCs

    LINDON, Utah, Apr 29, 2004/PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX® operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, announced today that they are to begin selling PCs pre-loaded with SCO Unix.

    In light of this change to their core strategy they will also be changing their name from The SCO Group Inc ("SCO") to Santa Cruz Unix Machines ("SCUM").

    "We feel that our new name better reflects our business and core values," said Darl McBride, President and CEO, Santa Cruz Unix Machines, Inc. "As SCUM we feel we are sending the right message to consumers about the sort of company they are dealing with."

    All products will be re-named to fit with the new corporate image.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains forward looking statements related to SCUM's belief that the world is flat and that anyone with an IQ over 12 would ever want to do business with them again.

    About SCUM

    The SCUM Group (NASDAQ: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCUM has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCUM Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCUM products and services, visit http://www.sco.com.

    SCO, SCUM and the associated SCUM logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Santa Cruz Unix Machines, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

    SOURCE Santa Cruz Unix Machines, Inc.

    • Re:Go Linux (Score:5, Informative)

      by ChrisBrown1 (212711) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:26PM (#9009010)
      No, DCX is saying that they haven't used SCO's OPENSERVER or UNIXWARE in that period of time. That ARE using LINUX.
    • Umm wake up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:26PM (#9009022) Homepage
      Wow, another major victory for Linux. A Fortune 500 company (of German origin, for God's sake) admits it didn't care to adopt Linux and was Unix/Microsoft shop all the way and always will be.

      DaimlerChrysler was being sued using their Unix licence. So they ditched Unix and went Linux/Microsoft long ago. Yes, I know. I've been trolled. I lost.

      Kjella
    • by Maestro4k (707634) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:39PM (#9009184) Journal
      • With all this idiocy, it would seem SCO are doomed. How could any company maintain with this much erosion to their credibility?
      As long as they can manipulate reports and spin things in a way that their stock price doesn't tank they can survive. IF this does get dismissed and the Autozone one as well it might impact their stock price. Actually this one might impact it because on the face of it, even to a lay person, having not used the software in question for 7 years makes the lawsuit look totally meritless.

      SCO has survived a year now with huge animosity towards them, just in the past few weeks are we seeing signs that their whole campaign may fall apart. If they pull something that gets investors to drive the stock price back up again, they'll continue to survive. Once it drops to what is it's true value (next to nothing IMHO) then that'll signify the beginning of the end of SCO.

    • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:46PM (#9009280)

      Trial by Sharon Stone - last person who doesn't faint in interrogation sequence wins

      Trial by Bludstone - Gain mod points by posting obscure Dark Crystal references

      Trial by Flintstone - Endurance rally race in which you drive a 600 lbs car cross country with your own two feet

      Trial by Oliver Stone - conducted by the CIA

    • by RedK (112790) on Thursday April 29 2004, @12:54PM (#9009380)

      And this could be one of them...

      Read the daimler filing, this is surely not one of them. This suit is about Daimler/Chrysler failure to comply to the audit letter sent to Unix licenses at the end of 2003. Basically, what they tell SCO is :

      We already answered but anyway, you didn't have a right to ask in the first place, and if you did, as per your contract with Novell, they waived your right to an answer. Also, we haven't used your systems in a while, and you have failed to indicated clearly how we're infriging your IP and you didn't try to mitigate or give us a chance to cure. So screw off and come back when you've got something to sue us over.

      And mostly, they're right, and you would know this if you followed groklaw's excellent coverage.

    • When the non-government document relates to copyright. From article I, section 8:

      The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

      Thus, GPL must agree with copyright law, which derives its power from the constituion. (Of course, they were really just trying to make people lose confidence in Free Software.)