Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Caldera Government The Courts News

SCO Volleys to Red Hat 469

ZeroVerteX noted that is saying "The SCO Group fired back against Linux leader Red Hat on Monday, filing a motion to dismiss the Linux company's suit against SCO. In a motion filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, SCO argues that Red Hat has no grounds to sue SCO, as SCO's actions against the open-source Linux operating system have not specifically targeted Red Hat." So it's ok to threaten a community, but not ok for a member of that same community to stand up?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Volleys to Red Hat

Comments Filter:
  • by switched4OSX ( 668686 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @08:58AM (#6974236)
    that SCO holds the copyright on stupid lawsuit. (sarcasm intended).
    • by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:59AM (#6974799) Homepage
      Not really.

      These are the same grounds on which the OFT dismissed mine (and quite a few other) complains against it in the UK.

      It is a generally valid argument as far as anticompetitive practices are concerned. You are not allowed to complain unless you are directly affected. All that Red Hat needs to prove that it is directly affected with relation to one or more of the SCO actions it alleges to be illegal.
    • by MuParadigm ( 687680 ) <> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @11:24AM (#6975662) Homepage Journal

      "So it's ok to threaten a community, but not ok for a member of that same community to stand up?"

      Actually, that's probably true, but also probably irrelevant in this case. Red Hat's initial filing included enough press quotes from SCO management specifically mentioning Red Hat, that I think Red Hat's controversy claim will hold up.

      SCO is saying hear that we never attacked Red Hat in the press, just Linux. But the record shows otherwise, lots of references to Red Hat by Darl & Co., so I suspect SCO will simply come off looking like hypocrites to the judge.

      I hope so, anyway. I really, really, want this Red Hat suit to succeed and shut down SCO's FUD machine.

      Red Hat's claim of there being an "actual controversy" should also hold up because of SCO's statements that they intend to invoice corporate users of Linux. Clearly some, probably most, of those corporate users are using Red Hat.

  • Mmm.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by eddy ( 18759 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @08:59AM (#6974243) Homepage Journal

    "There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." --Darl McBride, Apr 24 2003, here []

    • Re:Mmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by watzinaneihm ( 627119 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:09AM (#6974370) Journal
      I think SCO started out with a case against IBM and when they realised that IBM will not bend over, they switched tracks and got into a stock scam. The claim that Darl made was purely for publicity, I think.
      Now their words have come back to bite them. Either they can sue IBM and keep their mouth shut or they can do a publicity stunt. Both together is a dangerous idea. The outcome I hope is that they lose their suit against IBM, AND also get punished for their dumping scheme.
      • Re:Mmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:42AM (#6974623) Homepage
        They won't be punished, if by 'they', you mean 'the people that work at SCO'. 'They' have already made off with their cash cow, and have decided that SCO can burn while they walk off with the plunders.
        • Re:Mmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

          No, not if the SEC gets into this. Again IANAL, but does'nt the fact that they allocated shares to all the higher ups at a low price just before the IBM suit was filed count?
          And what about buying another Canopy group company from the money they made from SCO shares?
          Or what if the IBM case is dismissed and the court finds that Redhats case against SCO has merit, or that $699 scam was shown to be mail fraud? I think a lot of people will actually have to pay for what they have said. There are a lot of ways
          • by MuParadigm ( 687680 ) <> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @12:50PM (#6976790) Homepage Journal

            Darl gets a big fat payoff if he can deliver four straight profitable quarters. Most of it is in stock, which means he'll have to keep up the fiasco for another quarter or two to cash out.

            At that point, I think we can expect him to leave SCO. If there is any SCO left to leave. Maybe the final legal showdown will be Darl v. Ralph, to be filed in late 2004 or early 2005. We all know how much Darl loves to sue his employers.

            Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it to court because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.

            In the meantime, he'll do whatever it takes to show profit on the next two or three 10-Q's. He'll slash personnel, support, anything, doesn't matter how it affects SCO's long term prospects, as long as he shows profits each quarter. He'll try to get people to pay for SCO IP in Linux licenses NOW, not after the case is resolved in court, because he doesn't care what happens that far down the line.

            He needs the money on the books and in the 10-Q next quarter and the following one. He's got two profitable quarters in a row, though he probably wouldn't have made it this quarter without cutting personnel and associated costs. Two more to go, and he's golden.

            If he hasn't done it already, we can expect some *extremely* creative accounting over the next two quarters. Or more money from MS. MS, according to the latest 10-Q (available at SEC), has apparently purchased those "expanded licensing options" that were mentioned in the April 30 10-Q.

            Darl's biggest fear is that something will shut down SCO and/or it's FUD machine within those next two quarters. If he sounds irrational and afraid, well, that's because he is. He can't pull any more profits out of Germany. Australia, Austria, and Poland are lining up to gag him in their countries. Red Hat's trying to do the same in the U.S. Of course, none of this matters much as long as no court decisions are reached within the next 3 quarters. Which means delay, delay, and delay will be SCO's legal strategy going forward.

    • Mmm, again .. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zonix ( 592337 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:17AM (#6974432) Homepage Journal
      McBride: Every time I ship a copy of my operating system, I pay royalties to Novell and Veritas.

      [emphasis mine]

      I may not remember correctly, but didn't SCO say they had no ties left to Novell - or something along those lines - after Novell spoke up the last time?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:26AM (#6974504)
      A day of reckoning indeed. Lots of SCO insiders have been selling [] shares during the past few months. None of them are buying. These aren't just anybody. We're talking Robert K. Bench, Chief Financial Officier ; Reginald C. Broughton, Senior Executive VP ; Michael P. Olson, Controller ; Michael Sean Wilson, Senior VP ; Jeff F. Hunsaker, VP . These are people who should have some idea of the health of the company.
    • Re:Mmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs AT ajs DOT com> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:06AM (#6974865) Homepage Journal
      Good point. Also keep in mind that by threatening individual Red Hat customers, Red Hat's business is impacted by SCO's actions. This would seem to just be a delaying tactic on SCO's part. The best case scenario for them is to have this drag out in court for years.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:09AM (#6974887)
      Its time we began to focus on the positive side of this. I am thankful for SCO v IBM. In order for enterprise adoption of GNU/Linux to happen the GPL must be tested in the courts around the globe? If the GPL cannot pass the test, corporations will not accept it. When the GPL is found legal, we will have SCO to thank.

      My word to all of you is to end the hostility toward SCO and embrace the service they are providing the open source community.
  • by Grey Fox LSU ( 630480 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:00AM (#6974253)
    Mmmmm coffee in hand and my morning SCO rant. WooHoo.....

    Anyway, who did not see this coming. It's a "do as I say not as I do" thing with SCO. They think that they can get away with unbiased defamination. I beleive the judge will throw this motion out.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:01AM (#6974266)
    By SCO using fraudulent claims to deminish the marketability of RedHat's own products (as well as that of the Linux marketplace as a whole), RedHat has every right to sue.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:01AM (#6974272)
    Why havn't any of the 'Linux contributors' - aka the people who have code in the kernel stepped up and sued SCO over defimation?

    SCO has, in effect, called the 'team' that developed the Linux kernel thieves.

    Why hasn't any of the 'team' stepped up to the plate and sued?
    • by mikefocke ( 64233 ) <mike.focke@g m a i l . c om> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:06AM (#6974332)
      Anytime you want to fund the lawsuit.....

      OSS developers are liable to not be the best positioned to afford lawyers.

      Now if OSS only paid their developers (and we were willing to pay for it to fund those payments !!!) maybe they would/could.
      • by muzza ( 64255 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:56AM (#6974771) Homepage
        I have another idea which may work- find out what sort of specialist software lawyers require (there has to be something?) and create free packages to fill that need. With OSS/free software quality and a little publicity before too long the community would have a team of lawyers available to if not to equal the mega-corps then at least to frighten off jerks like SCO.

        As ESR said [] "willing allies are far better value than lackeys and sock puppets", it could be time that the community went out of it's way to create some allies in the legal proffession.
    • Maybe because they can't spell defamation either? Defimation? Defamination (massive aid shipments of Twinkies to starving geeks)?
    • by bizcoach ( 640439 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:17AM (#6974441) Homepage
      Why havn't any of the 'Linux contributors' - aka the people who have code in the kernel stepped up and sued SCO over defimation?

      Because suing over defamation doesn't allow you to extract enough money from the guilty party when you win.

      Otherwise, there'd be plenty of lawyers queued up asking the major kernel hackers for permission to sue SCO on their behalf.

    • by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:27AM (#6974512)
      Why havn't any of the 'Linux contributors' - aka the people who have code in the kernel stepped up and sued SCO over defimation? SCO has, in effect, called the 'team' that developed the Linux kernel thieves. Why hasn't any of the 'team' stepped up to the plate and sued?

      Oh, you know those kernel developer types. They are probably off on their yachts in the south of France sipping Cristal and snorting coke off of a stripper's ass.

    • suing for defamation (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:31AM (#6974550) Journal
      Suing for defamation is extremely difficult, even if you are 100% in the right. When you sue for defamation, the burden of proof is entirely on the person who brings the suit, and not only do you need to prove that the defamation has damaged you, you also have to prove that the defamation was comitted willingly and intentionally.

      While Linus et al surely have had their reputations dragged through the mud, it would be very difficult to prove actual damages, and SCO's defense would simply be, "We beleive we are correct."

      • by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @11:27AM (#6975690) Homepage
        When you sue for defamation, the burden of proof is entirely on the person who brings the suit, and not only do you need to prove that the defamation has damaged you, you also have to prove that the defamation was comitted willingly and intentionally.

        So, naturally for a libel suit there are generally three standards. 1) Did they say it? 2) Was it damaging? and 3) Is what they say factually incorrect?

        Here, the first is a foregone conclusion, and the second nearly is. The third is effectively the IBM case.

        But think about what that means. To prove that Linux DIDN'T steal from SCO, then either 1) SCO can actually turn over their allegations, for RedHat to refute, or 2) RedHat can subpoena the entire Sys V source code to show that any matches can be attributed to BSD or textbooks.

        This is exactly what SCO is trying to avoid - you know, an actual lawsuit? So I think this is more of a "put up or shut up" move by Red Hat than anything else. Effectively, it's a way of letting teh Open Source camp control the pace of the lawsuit that SCO has no intention of actually following through with. They're trying to use it for their pump'n'dump scheme, and the Open Source camp (here, Red Hat) is attempting to take that away, to force their hand.

        All in all, it's a damned good strategy.

  • by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:01AM (#6974275) Homepage
    Y'know, in spite of all the press you see, understand that the only legal action SCO has entered into is a *contract* suit against IBM. If they win that suit, there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.
    • by DoctorPepper ( 92269 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:07AM (#6974335)
      Y'know, in spite of all the press you see, understand that the only legal action SCO has entered into is a *contract* suit against IBM. If they win that suit, there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.

      While this may be technically true, the main reason Red Hat filed suit aginst SCO is because of the damage SCO is doing to Red Hat's business, not because of the law suit, but because of the statements Darl McBride and the rest of the "gang of three" keep making to pump-up their stock price. All Red Hat wants is for SCO to either put-up or shut-up.

      Also, as mentioned above, there were vague threats issued against Red Hat, SuSE and others by the SCO management several months ago.
      • by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:39AM (#6975180) Homepage
        With SCO sending nastygrams to RED HAT CUSTOMERS demanding money when said clients have no business or contractual relations with SCaldera, I'd say that this gives RedHat standing to file this suit.

        SCO is tampering with their clients, on the basis of unsubstantiated claims and legal THREATS.

        This motion is frivilous and will be tossed. It's a delaying tactic, nothing else.

        The US court system rarely tosses even completely BOGUS lawsuits on motions to dismiss. I don't think this one will be.

    • by cwernli ( 18353 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:09AM (#6974366) Homepage

      If they win that suit [against IBM], there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.

      And how do you explain the need to license your kernel [] ?

      • >> If they win that suit [against IBM], there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.

        >And how do you explain the need to license your kernel ?

        If you have a Linux kernel, then you already have received it under a license from the copyright owners.

        If SCO wins, then IBM will pay their $3 Billion, and that will be the end of the matter. The purpose of the $1 Billion damages is to fully, totally and completely compensate SCO for what IBM allegedly did. The purpose of tripple damages ($3 Bi
      • Exactly. If SCO execs were to tell the world that everyone using Windows needs to buy a $700 kernel license from SCO then you could fully expect Microsoft would unleash a battalion of lawyers in that direction. In that case it wouldn't matter that SCO was aiming a lawsuit directly at Microsoft or not, what matters is the direct trademark/copyright/ownership/right-to-sell attack on the product and its customers.
    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:40AM (#6974608) Homepage Journal
      Don't forget SCO is messing with RH's customers by extorting license fees from their customers. If that's not grounds for a lawsuit, what is?

      If follow this kind of thing for a few years, you'll realize the motion to dismiss is pretty much a standard part of the pregame ritual. It's just lawyer trash talk. Spectators should get their beer and popcorn and take their seats.
    • by SillySlashdotName ( 466702 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @11:32AM (#6975739)
      There are two actions going on here, one is the lawsuit against IBM, the other is the PR campaign against Linux.

      You are correct, the only legal action INITIATED BY SCO is a contract dispute with IBM.

      However, by making unsubstantiated claims and accusations in the press against Linux, they have harmed developers, distributors, and end-users of that operating system. Therefore, they have opened the door to legal action against SCO.

      Again, you are correct, SCO is not targeting Linux with a lawsuit - they are targeting them with misinformation, FUD, unsubstantiated claims, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as lies adn half-truths - actions which ARE legally actionable by anyone who has been hurt by their actions - including RedHat.
  • by tommten ( 212387 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:03AM (#6974296) Homepage Journal
    First, the CSOF contains literally dozens of paragraphs relying exclusively upon indisputably inadmissible material -- hearsay statements taken from books, magazine articles, letters and purported testimony of third parties who are not witnesses in this action

    Second, Caldera's CSOF contains many misstatements. Many of Caldera's assertions simply are not supported by the cited references. In other instances, Caldera selectively quotes from exhibits, whose full text plainly gives a different meaning than ascribed by Caldera. In alleging certain events, Caldera omits known related facts that convey an entirely different understanding.


    Finally, although Caldera attempts to rewrite 15 years of computer history, it oddly never mentions that it was not even a bystander to these events. In a 1996 transaction that closed on the same day that Caldera filed this lawsuit, Caldera paid less than $400,0006 for DR DOS and the right to pursue claims against Microsoft that Caldera now says are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This explains why the CSOF is not based on personal knowledge, and is not limited to admissible evidence.

    taken from the following page: 05-05re sponse.asp

    • One thing to note, Caldera did not win that case. Microsoft cut their losses [] in the midst of the anti-trust lawsuit and settled out of court.
    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:49AM (#6974693) Homepage Journal
      Caldera paid less than $400,0006 for DR DOS and the right to pursue claims against Microsoft that Caldera now says are worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

      Well, to be fair, you can't take as evidence that that DR sold DR-DOS to Caldera for $400K to argue that the damage to DR could only have been that much. The value of an investment depends on risk. MS may have deprived DR-DOS of hundreds millions of dollars of revenue, but MS might never be forced to pay these damages; with luck MS might have managed to drag the thing out for so long it that Caldera ran out of money.

      There's nothing wrong with a company picking up rights to a product with the intention of pursuing law suits related to that product. It's a way for wronged investors to recoup some of their loss and walk away from the whole situation. What is wrong is to pursue baseless litigation, especially as part of a pump-and-dump stock manipulation scheme.
    • by rcs1000 ( 462363 ) * <> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:50AM (#6974706)
      What a frightening document. I rarely find myself pitying Microsoft but Caldera (aka SCO) seems (and I admit to taking MSFT's word here) incredibly dishonest...

      For example... In paragraph 100, Caldera cites a presentation that Steve Ballmer gave to financial analysts on July 26, 1990 as evidence in support of its claim that Microsoft falsely preannounced MS-DOS 5.0. (See Exhibit 66.) Caldera asserts that Ballmer "specifically represented that MS-DOS 5.0 would 'launch this year throughout the world'" (emphasis in original). In fact, the referenced presentation says no such thing, and the page to which Caldera refers (Exhibit 66 at X565339) does not even mention MS-DOS. The presentation instead states that Microsoft planned to launch a "worldwide business" in 1990. (Id.) On the subject of MS-DOS 5.0, the presentation states on a different page that Microsoft anticipated releasing the product during "FY 1991", the fiscal year in which it was released. (Id. at X565315.)

      For example...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:04AM (#6974302)
    that SCO doesn't want part of the community to stand up for itself. Its that they don't want a part of the community with money and/or lawyers to stand up for itself.
  • by Brahmastra ( 685988 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:04AM (#6974305)
    Hope every Linux vendor in the world sues SCO.. Linux users should start suing SCO too. When lawyers from IBM, Redhat, 100s of Linux users, etc start overwhelming SCO with lawsuits, maybe they'll run out of money and cease to exist. They will not be missed
  • First amendment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by watzinaneihm ( 627119 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:04AM (#6974307) Journal
    In its responding motion, SCO says its actions are protected by, among other rights, First Amendment protections of free speech. "Any governmental interest served under the Lanham Act (one of the foundations of U.S. intellectual property law) is heavily outweighed by fundamental governmental interests in protecting copyright interests, ensuring full and free access to courts, providing litigation immunity, promoting judicial economy and fairness in litigation, and safeguarding freedom of speech and the press," according to SCO's motion
    Another company claiming the rights that an individual is entitled to. I say that since you can't jail a company or kill it, a company should not have the rights of an individual.
    I think the old Nike case has not been settled yet. So SCO is in the wrong. IIRC, AFAIK and IANAL. But I know I hate this.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:05AM (#6974312)
    In its responding motion, SCO says its actions are protected by, among other rights, First Amendment protections of free speech.

    Well that's interesting, because it was recently ruled in a Californian court that a Nike publicity campaign was actually "commercial speech" [] and so unprotected by the First Amendment.

    Personally, I think that companies claiming the rights of citizens can't be a good thing - after all, when did you hear of human rights abuses against corporations?
  • Stock (Score:3, Informative)

    by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker@g[ ] ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:05AM (#6974314) Journal
    Wow! SCO's stock is at 19.17 WTF!!!
  • by cwernli ( 18353 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:05AM (#6974318) Homepage
    It is of course a pure coincidence, but my company has decided a mere month ago to get rid of SCO Unix in the embedded systems environment and replace it with RedHat. The reason for this move has nothing to do with the ongoing juridicial battle, but has been made simply "because Linux in general is considered state-of-the-art". Cute.
  • by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:06AM (#6974328)
    I think if we as a group are trying to read some great plan into what SCO does we'll all go nuts. They are grasping a straws, hoping to find something, anything that will help them. It this get thrown out, they'll come up with some other stupid petition for the court until the judge tells them to stop.

    Sadly, I saw an article in PC magazine (Ziff-Davis Trash) and the columnist was just gushing over some 'Proof' that chris sontag from SCO had shown him that yes Unix source was in linux. The guy wouldn't know a strcpy from an sprintf, but he thought this was 'powerful evidence'. If it was there, it was probably from SCO when they were caldera. Oh well theres Lies, damn lies, statistics and then the ranting of brain dead computer columnists....................
  • Class action (Score:3, Interesting)

    by n1ywb ( 555767 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:06AM (#6974333) Homepage Journal
    OK, lets just say this bullshit somehow manages to grow wings and fly... IANAL but couldn't RedHat file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the open source community and allow you and me and everybody to sign on?
  • by canfirman ( 697952 ) <pdavi25&yahoo,ca> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:07AM (#6974334)
    Furthermore, Red Hat has shown no evidence that it is likely to be sued by SCO.

    "Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.

    Well, what did you expect, Darl? You threaten the open-source community, actively call Linux customers and tell them they're liable for using Linux, and you don't expect somebody with some guts (and cash) to stand up to you?

    It's like the school bully running to the principle after somebody he's pushed around pushed back.

  • by DavidNWelton ( 142216 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:07AM (#6974337) Homepage
    Apparently they will also be doing a 'city to city tour' showcasing their fabulous technology:


    Needless to say, a great opportunity to organize something with your local LUG to show up and politely make people aware that this is not a good company to be doing business with.

    The tour supposedly visits:

    -- October 7th, Toronto
    -- October 8th, Newark
    -- October 9th, Boston
    -- October 14th, Minneapolis
    -- October 15th, Chicago
    -- October 16th, St. Louis
    -- October 21st, Vancouver
    -- October 22nd, Irvine
    -- October 23rd, Dallas
    -- October 28th, Atlanta
    -- October 29th, Orlando
  • So what? (Score:3, Informative)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:07AM (#6974347) Journal
    I mean, of course they have. A motion to dismiss is just part of the dance. It's typically the first reaction of a legal team to a legal threat. I'm pretty certain its the first thing that IBM did as well.

    It's often a long shot, but if granted, it will save SCO a lot of time and money.
  • by judmarc ( 649183 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:07AM (#6974349)

    IAAL, and a motion to dismiss is something that is filed in nearly every lawsuit on the off chance that it will actually work and you can avoid having your client pay the expenses of litigation.

    Leaving out any comment about the legal judgment involved in SCO filing the original lawsuit, if SCO's lawyers *hadn't* recommended filing this motion to dismiss Red Hat's suit, it would have constituted malpractice.

    • by Chuut-Riit ( 48419 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:58AM (#6974778) Homepage
      IAAL too, and I think your comment goes too far. It is NOT malpractice to not file a motion to dismiss in nearly every lawsuit. In fact, many motions to dismiss are unsupported and unsupportable; filing one of these in a federal lawsuit risks getting the movant and his counsel sanctioned under Rule 11. THAT is probably malpractice.

      The key here is that Redhat filed a declaratory judgment action. Jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act is ALWAYS discretionary with the judge, even if the plaintiff is reasonably apprehensive that he's about to be sued. That gives SCO a better chance of succeeding than if Redhat were suing under a different jurisdictional basis.
      • by judmarc ( 649183 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:48AM (#6975273)

        The basic point is this: SCO filing a motion to dismiss, particularly in a declaratory judgment action, was to be expected, and it won't be news if the motion fails, since the vast majority do fail. (See my reply in the "Consequences" thread.)

        BTW: Back when I lived in the litigation world (9-10 yrs ago), filing a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule 11 or a state equivalent in response to a Motion to Dismiss would have been considered an act of Significant Nastiness (which is saying something when you're talking about lawyers) not entered into lightly, and unlikely to succeed. Have standards changed that much since then? Have you seen sanctions imposed under Rule 11 involving a Motion to Dismiss?

  • by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:10AM (#6974377)
    SCO sent 1500 letters to large Linux-using companies intimating legal action if those companies did not pay SCO's extortion demands. If any of those companies are using Redhat Linux, then it seems to me that Redhat has been pulled into standing by SCO's interference with Redhat's business relationship with those companies.

  • by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:11AM (#6974386) Journal

    I await with anticipation the M$ and RIAA stories soon forth coming.
  • GandhiCon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FTL ( 112112 ) * <slashdot.neil@fraser@name> on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:13AM (#6974398) Homepage
    1. First we ignored SCO [].
    2. Then we laughed at SCO [].
    3. Then we fought SCO [].
    4. ...
    Remind me what step four is?
    • by Second_Derivative ( 257815 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:14AM (#6974414)
      Um... PROFIT!

      Or is it "???" ... wait, wrong sequence.
    • Re:GandhiCon (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BlackBolt ( 595616 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:44AM (#6974647) Homepage Journal
      First we ignored Communism... yadda yadda, now it's DEAD. Reality doesn't always obey the cliches, but I know you're just being funny here.

      Gandhi's point was that when you rise up against the minority British ruling elite (in this case, SCO and Microsoft), you will win your freedom if you are

      * on the side of truth, ethics, and god ("righteous");


      * are a mass of a hundred million oppressed Indian citizens ("a sleeping giant").

      SCO is neither. In this case, unlike Gandhi's, SCO is greatly in the minority, they're in the wrong ethically, they're based on lies and deception, they're paid puppets of Microsoft waging a misinformation campaign, and the only thing oppressing them is their weak technology and bad attitudes. SCO is dead, and has been for some time. The voodoo king Gates resurrected them to do one last evil before they abscond with the shareholder's money. Don't let it be you. If they lose these lawsuits, AND THEY WILL, they will disappear off the face of the earth forever, leaving Evil Overlord Bill Gates smiling and with artificially clean hands.

      And eventually, the Free Software Community will win. It will not get derailed, and it will keep getting better until there will be no reason for anyone to buy Microsoft products anymore for any purpose. Gandhi's on OUR side, not SCO's.
  • by Slashdolt ( 166321 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:17AM (#6974444)

    I've posted this before, but instead of simply whining about their behavior here at /. we should be filing complaints with the FTC. Mention how they are trying to sell something that they do not own, and that if you don't pay them now (before they show what they own), they are saying that you'll owe them more later. Licenses start at $699 for a single processor during the promotional period.

    SCO's Address:
    The SCO Group
    355 South 520 West
    Suite 100
    Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
    801-765-4999 phone
    801-765-1313 fax

    FTC Consumer Complaint Form []

    Take a stand and make a real difference.


    • by superdan2k ( 135614 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:00AM (#6974812) Homepage Journal
      Thanks for the great link/info! Someone needs to mod you up ASAP. And because I'm in a sharing mood, here's the complaint I filed:

      "I currently use Linux as an operating system to host the website and commerce engine for my small business. Linux uses code that has been in the public domain for over 15 years (much longer than SCO has been around). SCO is claiming ownership of the software code in Linux and is pursuing legal action against IBM, among others. SCO has not proved in a court of law that they own the software code, but has been trumpeting in open letters on the Internet that anyone who uses Linux needs to acquire a $649 license from them or face legal action. This amounts to blackmail -- 1.) SCO hasn't proved their ownership of the code, and 2.) their issue should be with the companies that have distributed Linux, not with the individuals who use it. Clearly, SCO is trying to scare/threaten me (and other Linux users) into shelling out $649 for a product that isn't even theirs to distribute/manage. The FTC needs to put an end to these practices immediately, and ought to be looking into SCO's artificial inflation of its stock price via these actions, as well (given that SCO execs have been selling off millions in their company's stock)."
  • by Pembers ( 250842 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:20AM (#6974455) Homepage

    ...a copy is here [].

    Interesting points:

    • Revenue is down on last year for almost every part of the business, except SCOsource, to which they attribute their first two quarters of profitable operation.
    • They have cut back on R&D, but also on sales and marketing.
    • They admit to having no clue about how much revenue they'll have in future:
    • While our SCOsource initiative has already resulted in revenue of $15,530,000 during the last two quarters and we continue negotiations with other industry participants that we believe may lead to additional SCOsource license agreements, we are currently unable to predict the level or timing of future revenue from this source, if any.
    • They make no specific mention of their plan to exto^H^H^H^Hobtain money from anyone who uses Linux. Does this come under SCOsource? Do they not think it'll make enough money to make a difference to the balance sheet? Or is it just that they realise it's not a good idea to admit to the government that they're running a protection racket?

    I'm still waiting for the invoice for my single-CPU Linux box...

    • Licensing breakdown (Score:4, Interesting)

      by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:49AM (#6974698) Journal
      SCOsource initiative has already resulted in revenue of $15,530,000 during the last two quarters

      In the second quarter this was $8,250,000 from the two licenses sold.

      The other licensee was Sun.

      We also find the following in the quarterly:
      The SCOsource licensing revenue in the third quarter of fiscal year 2003 represents additional fees associated with two licenses executed during the April 30, 2003, quarter. Under the terms of our license agreement with Sun, we will receive an additional $2,500,000 by November 2003.

      So basically, they haven't sold any more licenses since April.
      Sun and MS are propping SCO up to hurt Linux.
      (Excluding the licensing, SCO is bleeding badly.. this is the only thing bringing them into the black.)
    • by heritage727 ( 693099 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:08AM (#6974880)
      The actual 10Q is here [], and this is the really interesting thing in it:
      During the three months ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") accounted for approximately 25 percent of total revenue and Sun Microsystems, Inc. ('Sun") accounted for approximately 12 percent of total revenue. During the nine months ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft accounted for approximately 16 percent of total revenue and Sun accounted for approximately 12 percent, of total revenue. There were no outstanding receivables from these two customers as of July 31, 2003. During the three and nine months ended July 31, 2002, the Company did not have any customers that accounted for more than 10 percent of total revenue.
      So 37% of SCO's income came from Microsoft and Sun last quarter. I think we can all draw our own conclusions, formulate our own expressions of outrage, etc.
  • Well DUH! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fritz1968 ( 569074 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:20AM (#6974457)
    From the Article:

    "Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.

    Well DUH!! Isn't SCO attacking the entire Linux Industry?!? Someone has to stand up for the Linux community (in a court of law in this case).

    I don't get it. SCO is allowed to spread FUD throughout any media organization that will listen, but the minute someone legally challenges SCO's accusations, SCO cries unfair?

    Someone please tell SCO to grow up... oh wait!...
  • by Brian Blessed ( 258910 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:25AM (#6974502)
    In related news, there's an article [] on that just seems crazy and doesn't do Sun any favours.The main problems with this article are not Sun's strange ideas (which constitute some of the shallowest media manipulation that I've recently seen), but author Michael Kanellos' jumbled up logic that only presents one side of the issue because he ignores the possibility that SCO are insane.
    Here are some choice inaccuracies/curious statements (interspersed with my comments):

    "You license Java--we will indemnify you on Linux," is how Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of software at Sun, said the program, if initiated, might work
    O.K. I don't see how Sun would think that they could do this but it's clear what they have in mind. Though what they mean by "license Java" is probably a detail that even they haven't worried about.

    SCO's legal position has drawn the ire of open-source advocates, some of whom have hacked SCO's site.
    As I understand, SCO's site hasn't been hacked, so he is refering to the DoS by an unknown person.

    Microsoft signed a multimillion-dollar licensing agreement with SCO that revolves around Unix-Linux compatibility issues
    Unix-Linux compatibility issues? Microsoft mentioned Unix-Windows compatibility, but surely noone would regurgitate that as the reason that Microsoft pay SCO.

    Sun has publicly stated on several occasions that it will indemnify its Solaris customers against any liability
    Is this true? Do Sun offer significantly greater protection that Microsoft (i.e. purchase price of the software)?

    Schwartz did not comment on how Sun could insulate its Java customers from a lawsuit from SCO, but there are a number of possibilities.
    So Sun are just posturing.

    Sun could request that Java customers seeking indemnity switch from using Linux to Solaris.
    Microsoft could request a similar thing!

    Sun could also, conceivably, devise a Linux-like OS
    I suppose I am capable of conceiving that, but it is a ridiculous idea.

    Sun's license only extends to Solaris, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, not to Java related products
    So the whole idea was obviously nonsense from the start and Michael only wrote about it because Sun said it so people will take notice.

    - Brian
  • by thoolihan ( 611712 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:29AM (#6974530) Homepage
    SCO is sending out letters about liability to licensing fees to GNU/Linux users, including RedHat's customers. That should be all the standing they need in court.

  • by voss ( 52565 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:34AM (#6974567)
    ...was to protect against government censorship.

    It does not protect you if you make statements designed to damage someones elses business. SCO clearly has stated linux has pirated code in it.

    Redhat's primary business is selling Linux products, whether Redhat was a primary target of that statement is irrelevant, it was an intended target. SCO has clearly intended through its statments and actions to target linux users and potential users who include Redhat customers and those who might become redhat customers. These statements were and are potentially misleading and deceptive.

    This may be causing actual financial damage to redhat. Courts do not want to impose prior restraint, but if Redhat can establish they are losing customers because of false and misleading statements by SCO then courts can and do act.

    All of these issues are for a jury to decide , so I dont think SCOs dismissal action will succeed
    • everyone forgets the fact that liabel and slander are expressly forbidden in the first ammendment as well, consider that if what SCO says isn't true (they havn't proven it yet) Redhat may be owed damages by SCO for the "defacment of their valuable name" or some BS like that. At the very least, it'll force SCO to break out the code. After this suit RH needs to sue SCO for slander, own them and end this whole affair with the death of SCO. That is, after devaluing their stock hopefully before the execs c
  • by Badgerman ( 19207 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @09:38AM (#6974597)
    Looking over the latest, which appears to be the usual SCO Linguistic Acrobatics ("We can say anything we want, it's free speech . . . for the corporation!"), I was wondering about the mentality inside SCO. Far inside, since they seem to be in their own world.

    I think expecting logic, decency, concern for the rule of law, etc. from SCO is doomed to fail. Of course, we pretty much knew that.

    Looking at their behaviors, its purely marketing behaviors. There's not a single connection to reality (except hopes to get $$$ by getting bought, stock manipulation, etc.). It's a marketing campaign, period, and like any campaign of its kind it'll morph, change, alter, play to whomever they can play with, and so-on.

    On the other hand, I don't think the SCOites truly realize what they're doing in their little world. They're annoying a huge amount of people and making themselves legal targets. I think they only see this great new ploy that's sure to work - it's marketing, and marketing is always to gullible schlubs anyway, right?

    That is perpahs their greatest personal weakness. They're running a marketing campaign in a legal arena. They're assuming people will roll over in the face of their brilliance and threats. They don't realize they're in a different arena.

  • by gvc ( 167165 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:19AM (#6974959)
    I have not yet seen SCO's motion [can somebody dig it up?], but according to the press accounts, SCO is challenging counts 1 and 2 (for declaratory judgement) on the grounds that no actual controversy exists, and are challenging count 3 (false advertising violating the Lanham act) on the grounds that the Lanham act is superseded by the First Amendment. Even if these grounds, which seem thin to me, were upheld, four counts would remain. The seven counts laid out in the full text of Red Hat's complaint [] are:
    • Declaratory judgement under the copyright act.
    • Declaratory judgement under the trade secrets act.
    • False advertising under the Lanham act.
    • Deceptive trade practices.
    • Unfair competition.
    • Tortious interference.
    • Trade libel.
  • by scottyboy ( 116119 ) on Tuesday September 16, 2003 @10:28AM (#6975056) Homepage

    Maybe it's just me... but everytime I look at that Caldera logo
    I just see the corner of a giant Mickey Mouse head hovering
    like a dark shadow across the globe.

    Hey. Maybe Disney should sue.

  • Here is an interview with the MS rep in the persian gulf area. It may initially seem off topic, but if you read through it, he starts using the SCO lawsuit as an example of why how linux users don't respect IP. (Funny, no mention of the Eolas patents as an example of how MS respects the IP of others)

    (This interview is worthy of a story submission in itself, but I have given up submitting stories to /.) le ID=97436

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.