SCO's claims Against Daimler-Chrysler Thrown Out 483
Zak3056 writes "According to eyewittness reports published on Groklaw, SCO has been all but thrown out of court in their suit against Daimler-Chrysler.
In a hearing that lasted 18 minutes with the judge ruling from the bench, all of SCO's claims, save that DCC failed to file their required certification with 30 days, were dismissed."
I hear SCO secretly settled (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hear SCO secretly settled (Score:5, Funny)
For a free car.
Actually, it's a $699 lease.
Re:I hear SCO secretly settled (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hear SCO secretly settled (Score:3, Funny)
Three, actually.
And the cards begin to come crashing down... (Score:5, Insightful)
OUCH! Stock price plunges.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:OUCH! Stock price plunges.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You think it started when the judge walked out of the room? I'd say that some quick-thinkers decided to sell when the judge walked INTO the room, seeing as how SCO would actually have to prove a point.
Re:OUCH! Stock price plunges.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:OUCH! Stock price plunges.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh....SCO vs IBM, SCO vs Daimler/Chrysler, SCO vs Novell. If the mainstream press always sides with the bigger company, then their slant should be decidedly *against* SCO in each of these cases.
Hell, even Auto Zone has almost 100 times SCO's market cap.
Re:OUCH! Stock price plunges.... (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft?
18 minutes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:18 minutes? (Score:5, Funny)
judge repositions himself in chair: 1 minute
clerk announces case number : 1 minute
parties walk to tables: 1 minute
judge reads over case notes: 2 minutes
judge questions SCO about claims + SCO response: 5 mintues
judge questions DCC about claims + DCC response: 3 minutes
judge reams out SCO and tells them they are stupid : 3 minutes
SCO walking out with their tail between their legs : 1 minute
total 18 minutes.
Re:18 minutes? (Score:5, Funny)
-m
total 18 minutes (Score:3, Funny)
Time required for /.ers to complete self-congratulation: 1/2 hour.
Time until SCO regains a semblence of dignity: one Eon.
Re:18 minutes? (Score:3, Funny)
clerk announces judge's arrival: 1 minute
judge repositions himself in chair: 1 minute
clerk announces case number : 1 minute
parties walk to tables: 1 minute
judge reads over case notes: 2 minutes
judge questions SCO about claims + SCO response: 5 mintues
judge questions DCC about claims + DCC response: 3 minutes
judge reams out SCO and tells them they are stupid : 3 minutes
SCO walking out with their tail between their legs : Timeless!
Actually took 10 minutes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:18 minutes? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:18 minutes? (Score:5, Funny)
"The court here *breaths from oxygen mask* finds...that the plaintif...the Santa Cruz Operations group...has made...claims...that
Re:18 minutes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:18 minutes? (Score:3, Funny)
(Holding his gavel in a very Macbeth way with that half surprised, half constipated melodramatic expression) "Spock... would-you... please... approach-the-bench?"
Re:18 minutes? (Score:5, Funny)
The judge had to listen to the complete compendium of law and fact supporting SCO's claims, which was recorded [cbsnews.com] in 1973 by Rose Mary Woods.
Re:18 minutes? (Score:5, Funny)
That, and constantly pinching herself to keep from laughing.
And there was Much Rejoycing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And there was Much Rejoycing (Score:2)
ahahahahahahaha... (Score:3, Insightful)
glad to see "justice" is being done.
would like to see them thrown out of the entire country myself (not just court)..
Good precendent to set though..
Re:ahahahahahahaha... (Score:2)
This is the beginning of the end.
Re:ahahahahahahaha... (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but I don't think it's necessarily a precedent. Remember, that all SCO's cases so far are contract-related. SCO did not claim anywhere any copyright violations. Since all contracts are different and have their specific clauses that SCO can argue were violated, they may have their case heard.
The annoying thing is how mainstream press translates this into - "Linux allegedly violating Unix copyrights" sensationalistic reporting. I bet they are generating more hits that w
SCO winning in mainstream press (Score:4, Insightful)
As I pointed out yesterday in another SCO discussion:
The mainstream press is buying into SCO's claims just (AFAICT) based on the weight of how often they repeat them and the fact that they have an easy contact point, whereas there is no general "Linux" contact person.
Take a look at one of CNN.com's front page articles [cnn.com] from yesterday. They sport lovely quotes like the following:
"The communal aspects of open source can lead to thorny legal questions, particularly when a company claims its proprietary code has seeped into a project. Because developers typically don't offer warranties, end users could be held liable for infringements."
Wow. It's like saying that all code under the GPL is held to a legal standard that's as harsh as
Sad. And probably not fixable.
Re:SCO winning in mainstream press (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention the fact that the other parties in the various lawsuits, being grownups, don't make comments about ongoing court cases. After spending almost 25 years inside giant corporations, I did learn that the two rules are (1) no one but the lawyers is allowed to talk about the case a
Money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Money? (Score:2)
Re:Money? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Money? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all pump-n-dump as far as I can tell. If you look at their 1 and 2 yr stock charts, you'll see that they were doing better. I think it was due to investors thinking one company had a shot and legally licencing all the linux boxes in the world. Of course, that's ridiculous. So now their company is in the toilet.
And a it's about damn time.
Re:Money? (Score:3, Informative)
The only ones really making money off this long and terrible saga are the lawyers - but is that any surprise?
Good Precedent (Score:2, Interesting)
Stock price already in a nosedive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stock price already in a nosedive (Score:5, Funny)
It's funny, you can see the zigzags in the downward slope -- people really are thinking that.
Re:Stock price already in a nosedive (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stock price already in a nosedive (Score:3, Interesting)
am not a action investor... (Score:3, Insightful)
Misleading? (Score:2)
"SCO has been all but thrown out"
Which one is it?
Re:Misleading? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Misleading? (Score:2)
Re:Misleading? (Score:2)
Re:Misleading? (Score:2)
all but
Function: adverb
: very nearly : ALMOST
In this case it actually makes sense, but lots of people misuse "all but" in a confusing way.
1 down (Score:2)
Its been quiet for a while.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Brief status, simplified (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot Novell (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its been quiet for a while.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its been quiet for a while.. (Score:5, Informative)
Ask any you shall receive! Click here [berkeley.edu].
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
One question... (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess ultimately my question is, does SCO going belly up mean the end of these lawsuits?
Re:One question... (Score:2)
Also, even if someone bought the company and resurrected it from the ashes to sue people again, the precedent set by this and other cases to come will probably preclude them from suing anyone else. If the facts in subsequent cases are substantially identical to the facts in these cases (they almost certainly would be), any suit would be
Re:One question... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One question... (Score:3, Informative)
no money = cheap company to buy = new money = new lawsuits
i doubt the validity, but if legal counsel for some insane organization convinces a CEO that there's merit to the lawsuits, we could see a purchase and resumption.
Re:One question... (Score:3, Insightful)
could this be why (Score:3, Informative)
Re:could this be why (Score:2)
New suit (Score:4, Funny)
SCO: this is a clear victory for SCO! (Score:5, Funny)
We have destroyed the Chrysler infidels and their heads now adorn pikes along all interstates leading into Utah.
Re:SCO: this is a clear victory for SCO! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SCO: this is a clear victory for SCO! (Score:2)
Not sure if it still works, but Here's a link for that... [theinforma...nister.com]
Re:SCO: this is a clear victory for SCO! (Score:3, Funny)
SCO had a tripod of cases... (Score:5, Insightful)
And lo, the FUD'ed tripod stood firm against the gales of disbelieving laughter, and failed FUD attacks.
First, AutoZone gets an indefinite stay. (uh oh.. SCO's only got two legs left, it's wobbly, a gust of wind will blow it over)..
And now the judge rips out every avenue of attack in the Daimler-Chrysler case. The judge also made it pretty much impossible for SCO to extort^W license their technology to all their old customers who now use Linux..
There's an image for you. SCO's tripod only has one leg left. There's a technical term for that.
BROKEN.
Re:SCO had a tripod of cases... (Score:5, Funny)
A monopod?
Article Text (Score:2, Informative)
Wednesday, July 21 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT
I have just heard from two readers who did attend the DC hearing. The eyewitness accounts are subject to later clarification, simply because neither is a lawyer and that can lead to missing certain details, as they disclaim in the reports. But with that disclaimer, this is what they say happened. I know we all wish to thank them both for attending the hearing, so we can get a fast report.
What they are telling me is
SCO provides Much wanted recreation ... (Score:2, Insightful)
eyewitness account #1 without the commentary (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO v DC was 18th of 22 cases on the motion callsheet for the morning. At 0841, the clerk called the SCO v DC attorneys up for a brief discussion, during which I was able to overhear the clerk tell them that he would "like to get [them] in and out."
At 0850, the clerk came over to the SCO side of the bench and spoke briefly with them, telling them "five minutes", I think stating the amount of time that each side would be granted for arguments. DC's attorneys came over and confirmed with the SCO attorneys what the clerk had to say.
SCO v DC was called at 0942. Barry Rosenbaum arguing for SCO and James Feeny arguing for Daimler, and motions were heard to admit Heise and Steven Prout?? pro hac vice for SCO, and also to admit Mark Masuchak from Massachussetts pro hac vice for Daimler, which the Judge granted.
Mr. Rosenbaum argued Daimler's summary dispo motion, noting from the outset that this was a more technical case, dealing with software and licensing agreements, and that he would frame the case briefly, in about 30 seconds. Chrysler says that the case is about whether or not section 2.05 of the SA requires a certification of compliance with detailed enumeration of extraneous facts outside the agreeement, or whether it simply requires a brief certification that licensee has complied with the terms of the license agreement.
Mr. Rosenbaum then went on to recite the language of Section 2.05. He stated that the letter requesting the certification from SCO went quite far outside the unambiguous language in section 2.05 when it asked to enumerate information regarding DC's use of Linux. Daimler didn't file the certification until after SCO filed it's lawsuit, which on its face appeared to be about the contract provisions being breached due to DC not giving SCO their compliance certification in a timely fashion.
Mr. Rosenbaum then went on to recite paragraphs 2 & 3 of DC's response letter, stating that there were no cpu's running SCO's software, that not providing a list of cpu's that weren't in existence and hadn't been used in more than 7 years was more than sufficient to comply with the language of 2.05. Since the language of 2.05 is unambiguous, there is sufficient grounds to grant summary judgement on all assertions in SCO's complaint.
Mr. Rosenbaum finished by stating that the original letter didn't request a list of CPU's running SCO's software. Since there were no CPU's running SCO's products, DC felt it was immaterial as to whether or not they responded within 30 days.
At 0951, Mark Heise then argued the SCO side of the case. He felt that DC's SA gave them full access to the source code and that DC had been given the right to use, modify and create derivatives for their own internal use, and that the SA required that they keep the software confidential, that it should not be exported outside the US -- which in this case seems to be a concern since Chrysler's recent merger with Daimler Benz of Germany.
Heise went on to argue the point that DC's answer to the request for certification was not timely nor was it adequate in that SCO has fears that the source code still lives on disk on some computer somewhere at DC and they are entitled to know where it's stored. He also stated that DC is not alleviated from the terms of the SA once they have decided to take the CD's or tapes or whatever of the source code and toss them in a closet somewhere, and that they needed full certification that the software had been held in confidence by DC.
He went on to recite the terms of section 6.02 of the SA, stating that Chrysler, upon ceasing use of the software, was bound to either destroy all copies or return the software and to notify SCO that they did same. Again, he expressed his concern that in DC's use of the Linux software they were worried that they may b
Re:eyewitness account #1 without the commentary (Score:3, Interesting)
The trap has been set (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, the 30 day compliance issue actually keeps open several key discovery paths that DCC might want to take. For instance, why wasn't DCC contacted after the letter was sent and before the lawsuit was filed? DCC could easy state who the hell is SCO? What happended to AT&T/USL? When did SCO get the rights? Hey, okay, we knew about that Novell deal, but SCO?
Additionally, why wasn't DCC contacted prior to the lawsuit when a simple phone call would be have cleared things up (I know that SCO addresses this issue in their complaint)? The judge could point out that SCO is wasting court resources by filing lawsuits without making any attempt to resolve the dispute outside of the courts, which in itself sends a message about launching surprise lawsuits.
More about an unreasonable request (Score:4, Interesting)
What would you do if you had a contract to provide a bushell of corn to your neighbor at most once a year. Then a guy that lives a mile down the road sends you a letter saying he bought the contract from your neighbor and that you have to get him a bushell of apples and wants you to certify that you are not growing peaches. How would you respond if you were growing peaches? Would you go ahead and send him a bushell of oranges assuming that his claim to have taken over the contract is valid and that is what he is entitled to?
I think this should have been thrown out as well. They didn't even request what they were entitled to. I don't think ignoring a request for something they aren't entitled to is out of line. At the very least, SCOX should have made a good faith effort to contact them again. All they did was send a letter in December and then file suit in March. Come on, not even a second letter, a phone call, or a fax to see why they haven't responded yet? Who does business like that?
Re:More about an unreasonable request (Score:3, Funny)
Would you go ahead and send him a bushell of oranges
Dude, your whole analogy is bogus! You're comparing apples and oranges!
-
And here's the bait (Score:3, Informative)
Dear Mr. Broderick:
-----snip-----
The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") believes that:
1. SCO "owns" certain rights under the Software Agreement referenced about ("SA") and,
2. SCO's referenced letter was a proper request for a certified statement under Section 2.05 of the SA.
SCO is not a party to the SA, and Daimler Chrysler has no knowledge of any assignmen
See SCO. (Score:3, Funny)
See SCO Tank [yahoo.com]
Tank, SCO tank!
Pronunciation Guide (Score:5, Funny)
In Germany, however, the Chrysler is silent.
I wish... (Score:4, Funny)
It gets worse, and soon... (Score:3, Interesting)
If the judge grants that (and it looks 50/50).. it's game, set and match.
Priceless (Score:5, Funny)
License for desktop Linux from SCO: $199
License for embedded Linux from SCO: $35
Judgement that will make this ridiculous house of cards begin imploding: Priceless
There are some things that money can't buy.
Even Microsoft's money.
Honorable Rae Lee Chabot (Score:5, Informative)
distro marketing opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Oddly Enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Its now 4PM EST so they have had a few hours to come up with SOMETHING, but their website [sco.com] only has two PRs so far today... one about a new release, and another about a partnership with Ericom.
Maybe even they dont know how to spin this one...
And to rub it in their face... (Score:3, Funny)
SCOX down 7.5% in 3 hours (Score:5, Funny)
Transcript of the Hearing (Score:5, Funny)
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers: Sir please look at exhibit A. It clearly shows...
SCO lawyers: Fsck you!
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers: Your honor the code is not...
SCO lawyers: STFU. You stole our code.
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers: Excuse me but...
SCO lawyers: I saw you steal it.
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers:
SCO lawyers: I have a video tape of it, but my dog ate it.
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers:
SCO lawyers: Show me the money. Show me the money!!!
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers:
SCO lawyers: (In LOTR voice) Your code is Mine!
Re:Transcript of the Hearing (Score:3, Funny)
Cheney is an SCO lawyer ?
Re:Transcript of the Hearing (Score:3, Funny)
SCO lawyers: Show me the money. Show me the money!!!
Daimler-Chrysler lawyers:
SCO lawyers: (In LOTR voice) Your code is Mine!
You forgot one:
SCO lawyers: If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! [nihildum.com]
Re:One down (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One down (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One down (Score:5, Funny)
As opposed to the incompetent, understaffed legal team at IBM?
(/chuckles inwardly)
Re:One down (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say fucking with IBM, the annual #1 patent receiver (among other legally-interesting habits) probably knows a thing or two about getting and using great lawyers as well
Taking on Linux via legal tomfoolery is a mistake, but not the biggest one (lots of companies shirk their GPL responsibilities but most come to see reason, for example).
Fucking with the deepest-pocketed, and one of the most veteran, companies in the computer industry, was (IMHO) their biggest mistake.
Maybe they'll sue Ford next, claiming they invented the production line automobile...
Xentax
Re:One down (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One down (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One down (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One down (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't been following the SCO news, have you?
This has already happened. BayStar pulled their investment (well, okay, converted the stock) and said SCO was incompetent because they couldn't win their lawsuits with the management they have. (BayStar is actually stupid enough to think SCO could win and actually make money sueing peo
Re:It is unfortunate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is unfortunate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Death to SCO!!! /SCO is dying (Score:4, Funny)
(it's funny...laugh)
Re:Death to SCO!!! (Score:2)
Re:In other news - Paint Stocks Soar! (Score:3, Funny)