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."
Death to SCO!!! (Score:1, Informative)
could this be why (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.
Brief status, simplified (Score:5, Informative)
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 that DaimlerChrysler's motion for summary disposition was granted in all particulars except one, which is whether they replied fast enough or should have done so within 30 days. What that means is SCO's action against DC is over in all meaningful senses. I can't believe they will wish to spend the money to litigate over something so trivial with no conceivable damages or useful relief, even if they were to prevail, and I doubt they could anyhow. Still, this is SCO, so we will have to wait and see. They were, by both accounts, trounced.
So you can get the full flavor of the day, here are both reports.
------
REPORT 1, from eggplant37:
Well, like a wolf at a corpse, Judge Chabot has eviscerated SCO's case against Daimler. Here's my narrative of what happened in court:
I arrived at 0800 to the courtroom and found that SCO v DC was 18th on the motion callsheet, nearly close to the end of the session, as there were only 22 cases to be heard this morning. . . . DC's lawyers were rather jovial during the checkin period prior to court being called into session, and SCO's attorneys looked rather concerned but cool about it. Mark Heise reminded me of Superman actor Chris Reeves in appearance. Ryan Tibbits reminded me of a big, blocky Marine drill instructor as to his appearance.
The courtroom didn't open up until 0820 and I watched the various attorneys, both from the SCO v DC case and several other cases being heard this morning, as they checked in. 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.
Court was called to session at 0905. Judge Chabot is a petite woman with a very short, close-cropped hairdo, and looked determined and no-nonsense in her affect. Judge Chabot heard and ruled on a motion in the first case heard in less than 30 seconds, which seemed to surprise both attorneys in that case. One attorney in that first case jokingly commented that she hoped that this ruling would set precedence in how speedily cases would be heard this morning, which was met with laughter throughout the courtroom.
Second case was heard at 0906, third case at 0917, fourth case at 0921, fifth case at 0931, 6th case at 0940 and 7th case at 0942, so this shows that Judge Chabot is one speedy lady who doesn't muck about while running her courtroom.
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
Re:Its been quiet for a while.. (Score:3, Informative)
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 way. What you would hope for is that press gets its facts straight and cut down on "OMG -- you HAVE TO read this!!!" type articles.
Re:One question... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Its been quiet for a while.. (Score:5, Informative)
Ask any you shall receive! Click here [berkeley.edu].
Honorable Rae Lee Chabot (Score:5, Informative)
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 people.) This doesn't seem to have affected SCO management much (Darl is still there), but things are not going well on the cash front, either.
SCO is on its last legs - by this time next year, it should all be over and UNIX IP (if SCO actually HAS any) should be picked up for pennies on the dollar at the assets auction.
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?
You forgot Novell (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wtf (Score:1, Informative)
What SCO was after was to see if DCC had given the code away in any way, shape or form to anyone, anywhere.
DCC basically said "we stopped using it 7 years ago and chucked it in a closet". SCO then said "well, then you have to tell us everything you're running on every machine that is physically present in all your buildings, regardless of whether its powered or not..AND certify that no code ever came from any of those machines and went to the outside world".
Needless to say, the judge was not amused.
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 assignment of the right of the Licensor under the SA to SCO. According to our records, the SA was assigned from AT&T Information Systems, Inc. to UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. on or about November 1, 1990. Notwithstanding these facts, SCO has filed its suit against Daimler Chrysler. SCO's suit appears to be based on an uninformeed and inaccurate assessment of Daimler Chrysler's conduct. As a result, and without waiving any of its rights under the SA or under applicable law, including without limitation its right to assert that SCO has no rights under the SA, that SCO has no right to seek the certified statement under the SA, and that SCO has intentionally filed a meritless lawsuit for purposes of restraining competition, Daimler Chrysler provides the attached information to SCO.
---- attachment ----
The attachment is a letter sent to USL certifying compliance (i.e., no designated CPU's.
Your move SCO. Doesn't this letter tell you what DCC's is thinking? That's right, you're screwed.