SCO Suit Against DaimlerChrysler Tossed
from the there-goes-that-plan dept
Continuing the ongoing farce that is SCO's legal strategy and (they bizarrely seem to believe) business model, John points us to the latest over at Groklaw noting that it sounds like pretty much the entire case against DaimlerChrysler has been dismissed. You may recall that SCO made a big stink about how they were going to start suing companies, despite the lack of any real evidence that they have any IP claims on Linux, with AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler being the initial targets. It appears that strategy has gone down the drain now as well. If this doesn't convince companies to ignore baseless threats from SCO, I don't know what will.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
bias
I've admired how you've kept your blog free of bias in the SCO case. That is, until now. Here's your book of chants, your pitchfork and you can get your free T-Shirt from the guys in the blue limos over there or you can make your own with some of these free designs. The ugly beast is in the tower over there, and we're pretty sure it hurt that woman.
- - - -
What if, in some parallel universe, SCO was right, and IBM had been a major bastard, weilding their well-known army of lawyers to expert effect? What if IBM had concinved SCO to do a whack of work for them, then refused to pay for it, then tossed bits into Linux?
What if IBM was a bastard, and its shiny commercials were mostly pulled from the airwaves so that it could reallocate the marketing money to the anti-SCO machine?
Look beyond the hatred that the open source mob feels toward SCO, despite SCO's earlier code gifts. See how a negative experience with all SCO's attempts at earlier charity can be seen as futile attempts to appease a self-righteous mob, even before the Support Agreement Fiasco. Extrapolation shows a theme of non-involvement in the court of public opinion and a reluctance to validate the whiny cries of the apparent unloved masses up to this legal eruption that seems remarkably close on the outside to what we've been seeing from Utah.
Indeed, before Caldera Sued Microsoft, SCO's lawyers weren't really known for being vindictive, grabby or overbearing; SCO's hippy culture was more known for working all hours, for clothing-optional hot-tubs and really great usenet participation (Hi Mr Record and Mr Schilling). They've always been rather unprepared to launch crazy lawsuits.
The conclusion seems to emerge that SCO really is still a bunch hippies, unused to dealing well with the media as they are still smarting from every single effort they formerly tried to make to somehow reduce the rabid hatred the hippies for linux felt toward the hippies for unix - that is, before they gave up on the idea of continually throwing expensive candy at the continually grabbing kids.
For that, they really must die. How DARE they stop throwing things out so we can turn up our noses at them? Open EVERYTHING, and ensure that the White Box Enterprise Linuxes of the world have something to do with their starbucks-driven minds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bias
I've admired how you've kept your blog free of bias in the SCO case. That is, until now. Here's your book of chants, your pitchfork and you can get your free T-Shirt from the guys in the blue limos over there or you can make your own with some of these free designs. The ugly beast is in the tower over there, and we're pretty sure it hurt that woman.
- - - -
What if, in some parallel universe, SCO was right, and IBM had been a major bastard, weilding their well-known army of lawyers to expert effect? What if IBM had convinced SCO to do a whack of work for them, then refused to pay for it, then tossed bits into Linux?
What if IBM was a bastard, and its shiny commercials were mostly pulled from the airwaves so that it could reallocate the marketing money to an anti-SCO machine?
What if SCO's "crack" legal team advised them to clam up about the details for fear that IBM would refuse to release the relevant parts of AIX, and for legal paranoia that linux developers would somehow invalidate the case? What if IBM goaded the public into demanding those details, just so it knew where to backpedal? What if SCO decided to hold back on the rest of the details or offer smokescreen in order to trick the cyclops into a blunder big enough to actually win the day?
Look beyond the hatred that the open source mob feels toward SCO (despite SCO's earlier pointless code gifts). See how a SCO's negative experience with all attempts at earlier charity can be seen as futile attempts to appease a self-righteous mob, even before the Support Agreement Fiasco. Extrapolation shows an eventual theme of non-involvement in the tabloid of public opinion and a reluctance to validate the whiny cries of the apparent unloved masses, a theme or policy that runs up to this legal eruption and which creates an external view that seems remarkably close on the outside to what we've been seeing from Utah.
Indeed, before Caldera Sued Microsoft, SCO's lawyers weren't really known for being vindictive, grabby or overbearing; SCO's hippy culture was more known for working all hours, for clothing-optional hot-tubs and really great usenet participation (Hi Mr Record and Mr Schilling). They've always been rather unprepared to launch crazy lawsuits.
The conclusion seems to emerge that SCO really is still a bunch hippies, unused to dealing well with the media as they are still smarting from every single effort they formerly tried to make to somehow reduce the rabid hatred the hippies for linux felt toward the hippies for unix - that is, before they gave up on the idea of continually throwing expensive candy at the continually grabbing kids.
For that, they really must die. The whitebox linux people need new code! SCO must Open Everything or Richard Stallman will call them weenies!
Okay, that's all I had to say. Your faithful readers may now chant STFU or debate minor points of something I've written so they need not concern themselves with the possibility that they could have been misled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bias
I couldn't care less what open source advocates think about SCO. I only care about the business aspects, and those aspects say SCO is making a colossal mess to themselves and plenty of others by this farcical lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: bias
SCOX (their stock ticker symbol) is the company that used to be Caldera (which did, at one point belong in the 'Good guys' column) but started down a dubious path with the whole per-seat licensing model that they spearheaded with United Linux and then went completely off the deep end when they started trying to sue everyone and their brother who used Linux.
They are currently trying to claim control over a whole lot of code that they had nothing to do with writing, along with some that they did (and possibly some other code that they bought rights to).
There's all kinds of reasons why this is stupid, not the least of which is destroying any potential future user base (who in their right mind would ever willingly do business with a company whose CEO has said publically and proudly: "Contracts are what you use against people you do business with." ?)... and that's before you consider the reams of legal reasons in addition to the fundemental business stupidity that are covered in excruciating detail over at groklaw... not the least of which is distributing all of the code in question themselves under the GPL for *AT LEAST* 7 months *AFTER* filing the lawsuit against IBM.
Bottom line, this is *NOT* the Santa Cruz Organization of old.. not by a long shot. And as someone who has been involved in Linux since the spring of '92 and watched this case very closely from before it was filed, SCOX does in my opinion richly deserve to be ground into dust by IBM and then the earth where they lived salted as a warning to others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SCO could be right - just not 3 billion right.
It is documented that the Linux kernel and gnu/Linux vendors have used code in violation of licences in the past:
1) 5.1 of RedHat used the BSD based LPR software, yet did not follow clause #3 in the license.
2) 2.0.36 (and perhaps other kernel versions) took at least one file from the FreeBSD network code, removed the BSD copyright (clause #1 and #2 violation) and BRAGGED about removing the BSD copyright, then put one a GPL copyright.
3) The ATA code incident
These are 3 I know of, I don't know how many more there are.
So, could some shmuck have lied and used SCO's code in an illegal way? Sure.
Is there $3 billion worth of damages? *I* personally don't see how.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Um, don't think so...
The BSD inconsistencies that the poster has shown above are just that - A few Linux guys copying from BSD, as they have complete right to and have always done, and forgetting to attribute it a few minor cases. Improper, yes, but barely worth of notice, and if that's all that anyone can find wrong amongst Linux's millions of lines of code from thousands of contributors, then the FOSS guys don't have anything to fear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SCO could be right - just not 3 billion right.
Personally I don't see why anyone gives them the benefit of the doubt this late in the game. I don't because of:
- The fact that SCO has been deliberately vague about the "infringements"
- The fact that they publicly state their intention to sue END-users (and have backed this up by their failed SCO-License protection racket) despite having no legal justification to do so.
- The fact that their story changes every other week (at times in front of a judge no less)
- The fact that they consistently misrepresent their case(s) in the media with multitudes of press releases (trying to spread FUD)
Fact is that any infringement that could be PROVEN would simply (and HAPPILY) have been fixed immediately by the kernel maintainers. Its the most transparent set up in the IT world...its not that there CAN'T or WON'T be abuses, but they can be dealt with in a reasonable and timely manner. SCO has always shown NO interest in doing this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The SCo case against ibm is in deep fairy land, Mi
- they are not the same company that made the critical deal with Novell, they did not inherit its rights.
- SCO claims that the contract with novell sold all copyrights of Unix. but the contract does not include anything resembling a transfer of copyright form. SCO has clearly stated that the contract does not meanwhat it says; this is not going to fly.
- SCO has been fishing in IBM's source files for copyright violations. They are still trying to fish, but in the court case THEY HAVE REMOVED THE CHARGES that Linux contains sco-copyrighted material. That's not a claim anymore.
- SCO has refused to provide a single document in response to IBM's discovery rights. Rather than insist that SCO has defaulted on discovery, IBM has formally accepted that SCo has no relevant documents to discover. That claimed admission is also going to greatly damage SCO's case.
- it's well-documented that SCO, until recently, has given away (at their website) code very similar to what they charge IBM with giving away.
One way to see SCO's lack of merit is to see that in the four cases going on (DC, autozone, redhat) they are making strongly conflicting claims to meet each venue. if they had a case, they would stick to one set of consistent claims.
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The DC case has NOT been dismissed, the judge was
If they want to appeal they must first either:
- pursue the ridiculous 30 day charge, which will not impress anybody.
- or, conceed that DC DID reply in a timely fashion (although their current claim is that they had to sue because DC didn't), and THEN they can appeal the judge's rulings.
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Um, don't think so...
Perhaps I was not clear.
on 2.0.36 the hunk of code in question STATES that they found this code in FreeBSD and WILLFULLY removed the BSD copyright. Then they put on a GPL copyright notice.
To say 'they forgot' is like saying Abu Grabde was 'like a faternity hazing', or 'Sandy Burger took papers by mistake' when shoving the papers inside his clothing.
The code from FreeBSD where the BSD copyright was removed (Violation of #1 and #2) willfully. So, could there be code put in that should have not been there? Yes. Is it worth $3 billion? Doesn't seem so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]