McBride Says No More Lawsuits From SCO 280
thephotoman writes "Well, Darl McBride gave an interview to IDG News Services in which he said that SCO is not going to sue any more customers. They do bring up the issue of the SCOsource Linux licensing, and how much of a failure it has been. Instead, they plan to start marketing their flavor of Unix. However, as he's not dropping the current lawsuits, there's no good reason to believe him on this change in strategy."
Re:Good Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. Note that they didn't promise to stop suing non-customers. And that includes all linux users.
Or maybe this time they'll claim that there is stolen SCO code in OSX. That could supply our SCO news fixes for a while.
Re:Bottom line? (Score:5, Informative)
From http://www.micros.com/products/table_service_rest
"8700 Hospitality Management System (HMS)
The 8700 HMS is composed of MICROS-developed application software running on the multi-tasking, multi-user SCO UNIX operating system."
Micros is really popular in the restaurant industry in general.
SCO Community Forum? (Score:3, Informative)
>As The SCO Group Inc.'s reseller and developer community gathers for its annual SCO Forum convention in Las Vegas this week, one question on many attendees' minds will be whether the company's future will be as a software vendor or as a litigator.
Just who is attending this thing? How large is their "reseller and developer community", and does it have anyone in it other than SCO employees? Where is it being held, the back room of the Denny's on Fremont Street? Anyplace else, and the hall is going to look rather empty.I'm pretty sure the question about their future as either a software vendor or litigator has already been answered in the marketplace.
Re:Bottom line? (Score:2, Informative)
The market that SCO Unix represents ceased to be worth the R&D to support about a year before Darl and his cronies started throwing their tantrum. It's far cheaper to hire sales engineers to migrate the customer to a platform with a future (such as Linux or Solaris) than to put the effort into supporting an OS distribution with such a restrictive list of supported hardware (in comparison to even SOlaris/Intel), that is so much of a pain to track down (in comparison to Solaris/Sparc).
I'm sure they've added AGP support to SCO by now, but I'm likewise sure it's a seperate, per-seat license, and problably $250 or so a seat at that. That's typical of them, going back to the Xenix days (when I used to work for a re-seller).
FYI (Score:1, Informative)
This f***ing meme is SO FRUSTRATING (Score:3, Informative)
Please provide at least one instance of SCO having sued a non customer.
SCO has only ever sued customers (or partners or former customers/partners, or entities that have had a contractual agreement of some sort with SCO specifically). Such as IBM (project Monterrey partner), Autozone (former customer), DaimlerChrysler (former customer), and almost Bank of America (customer).
Since they have never sued a non customer, they can't stop suing non customers (akin to the old "when did you stop beating your wife" question). You should realize that making such misleading statements propogate the FUD that make PHBs shiver. And despite their occasional stupidity, the battle won't be won until those at the bottom "get it."
Get it?
I guess he's not counting (Score:2, Informative)
- BayStar's recent press release says they intend to file for declarative judgement against SCO's
- Daimler Chrysler sent a letter to SCO (and attached it as an exhibit to their summary disposition motion) saying they reserved the right to file an unfair competition claim against SCO, hinting they would if SCO didn't voluntarily dismiss their own suit (and SCO didn't).
- Novell seems likely to file counterclaims against SCO
- The Open Group has indicated that SCO's attempt to register a trademark on Unix System Laboratories is a breach of the Trademark License Agreement contract. And they will be taking it up.
Re:Res judicata (Score:2, Informative)
Stick with playing an attorney on TV. Because you're a poor attorney in real life.
The cited definition for res judicata is entirely correct. Res judicata bars a party from relitigating an issue that has already been litigated between BOTH parties to a suit (as an actual issue, or as a compulsory claim that someone failed to raise in the initial suit) on the theory that judgements should be final absent an abuse of discretion or an error of law. Res judicata is useless in a subsequent suit brought against or brought by a different party. [Plain english: A sues B. A loses and the judgment is not vacated or reversed on appeal. A sues B again on the same facts. The suit is dismissed due to res judicata. A sues C on almost identical facts. If B and C are not related to each other, the suit goes forward.]
The concept that you're looking for is called collateral estoppel. Definition [law.com]. But the name is not the important error. The important error is that collateral estoppel can only be used DEFENSIVELY against a party that participated in the original suit. That pesky constitution thing requires that a party actually have the opportunity to litigate a claim. Thus if SCO loses a decisive issue in a case, it has had the opportunity to litigate the issue, and other defendants in subsequent cases can use the ruling against SCO under collateral estoppel. However, if SCO wins a decisive issue in a case, SCO cannot use collateral estoppel to prevent other defendants from relitigating the same issue in their own defense.
Summary: From a legal point of view, it's all downside, no upside. From a business point of view, a good win will change the other defendants' or potential defendants' perception of the risk of losing a suit, and encourage a settlement.
Thank you for playing the remedial Civil Procedure law school game. God help your clients.