×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO's claims Against Daimler-Chrysler Thrown Out

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the sucks-to-be-them dept.

Caldera 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

483 comments

I hear SCO secretly settled (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761838)

For a free car. It was all they really wanted anyway.

Re:I hear SCO secretly settled (4, Funny)

OECD (639690) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761888)

For a free car.

Actually, it's a $699 lease.

Re:I hear SCO secretly settled (3, Funny)

stanmann (602645) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761920)

And they are going to sue to repossess it If any of them ever leave Utah, with or without the car. And if anyone not affiliated with SCO gets into the car.

Re:I hear SCO secretly settled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761971)

Oh really, my dear..

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761843)

FP DA'ss

WOOHOO (1)

Zelligar (667014) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761845)

Let the crumbling begin...

SCOX down 7.5% in 3 hours (5, Funny)

Bob 4knee (756841) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761915)

New yearly lows. Heck of a business plan

Transcript of the Hearing (4, Funny)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762104)

SCO lawyers: The code was stolen from us

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!

One down (1, Redundant)

rsmith (90057) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761849)

Three to go. :-)

Re:One down (2, Interesting)

TheLetterPsy (792255) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761960)

While I would love to rejoice as much as the next Slashdotter, isn't anyone worried about appeals? Remember that we are talking about SCO. They will drag things out, it's their M.O. Don't forget they have that $50 M to play with. IANAL, of course, so maybe appeals aren't possible in this case. Could someone that knows fill us in?

Re:One down (3, Interesting)

banzai51 (140396) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762065)

They'd have to come up with something good to get this back. But in the end, SCO's 2nd biggest mistake was fucking with the auto industry. They have great lawyers and know how to use them. They are not going to be intimidated by some 2 bit operation like SCO. (and yes, I do even mean SCO in it's heyday). To mess with the auto industry you have to be right, have ALL your ducks in a row, and be very, very lucky.

Re:One down (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762093)

"While I would love to rejoice as much as the next Slashdotter, isn't anyone worried about appeals?"

How should SCO2 appeal this case? There is one item left to be litigated, and if that is done and ruled about, then SCO2 can appeal.

After losing a case because DCC did not react within 30 days to a letter sent to a company that changed its name 15 years ago in a building that was teared down for a highway years ago for a software that was not used 7 years ago? And the 30 days included yuletide, which was used by SCO2 as a reason they could not contact their executives?

And the cards begin to come crashing down... (4, Insightful)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761850)

I was waiting for this to start. Meritless lawsuits have taken the SCOmbags way further than they ever should have gotten.

Re:And the cards begin to come crashing down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761972)

I said that already, my dear..

18 minutes? (5, Funny)

SIGALRM (784769) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761853)

Why'd it take so long?

Re:18 minutes? (5, Funny)

musikit (716987) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761932)

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 : 1 minute

total 18 minutes.

Re:18 minutes? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762036)

SCO being told to fsck themselves...timeless.

Actually took 10 minutes (4, Funny)

Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761935)

But SCO tried to file a TRO against the Circuit Court of Michigan. It appears the court uses Linux Servers, to handle all of the court dosument distribution. SCO claimed that a TRO was in order because the issuance of the Dismissal would result in irreperable harm. The Judge promptly dismissed the TRO in 2 minutes. The remaining 6 minutes were taken up with everybody in the courtroom ROTFLTAO.

Re:18 minutes? (4, Funny)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761954)

You obviously haven't heard many judges talk.

"The court here *breaths from oxygen mask* finds...that the plaintif...the Santa Cruz Operations group...has made...claims...that ...are...groundless...and lacking...basis...in fact...Now...I will...list...the four-hundred ...and twenty...legal precidents...*Deep breath of oxygen*...on which I...based...my desicion."

Re:18 minutes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762021)

I will...list...the four-hundred ...and twenty...legal precidents

Woohoo! You said 420.

/me lights up a spliff.

Re:18 minutes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761982)

The judge had to tell them how very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very...very meritless their suit was.

Death to SCO!!! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761854)

First death to SCO post. Looks like they are on the decline [yahoo.com].

Re:Death to SCO!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761916)

Actually not really [yahoo.com], my dear. Check your facts beforehand next time.

Re:Death to SCO!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762030)

Seeing as they are at their 52 week low, I'd call that a decline. -7% in one day, I'd also say is a decline. Stop spreading FUD. The point is, these lawsuits caused a price spike which has all but disappeared. One more dismissal or significant item of bad news and they're back to being a penny stock. And as far as I'm concerned, anything trading below $5 a share at low volumes is volatile enough to be considered a penny stock.

Biting on trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762057)

Very cute but you've distorted the Y axis by selecting a two year time frame. How's your stock doing in the last 6 months? [yahoo.com]

Re:Biting on trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762142)

now when have they starting their license actions? 6 months ago? as said before check your fucking facts, fag, my dear.

Re:Death to SCO!!! (1)

drxs3v3n (790522) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762013)

I don't understand there goal there going after companys that have nothing to do with unix are they going after Ford or Microsoft next wait going after Microsoft would be a conflict of interest maybe Microsoft has unix code in it and that with the windows services for unix thing is why they bought/support/married to sco

Death to SCO and the rest of the NASDAQ. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762145)

So is the rest of the NASDAQ today.

Check Motorola [yahoo.com] for example!

ahahahahahahaha... (2, Insightful)

joeldg (518249) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761857)

serves them right.

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... (0, Troll)

Acidic_Diarrhea (641390) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761947)

You want to see "them" being thrown out of the country? Who is "them"? The execs? Everyone who works for SCO? What about share holders? They may not be pushing for lawsuits but the execs are trying to keep them happy enough not to start dumping the stock. And what country are you going to send "them" to?

There's no need to put quotation marks around justice there. Justice is being served. These are meritless lawsuits and they are being dismissed from court. These people are capitalists trying to make a dishonest buck - they're not illegal aliens so deportation really isn't a reasonable expectation here.

Re:ahahahahahahaha... (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761955)

Man, I was having an _ok_ day until now. This just warms my heart! From the witnesses' accounts, DC had some brief, powerful arguments, which pleased the judge, and SCO has some flacid babblings about "methods and concepts", which the judge did NOT appreciate.

This is the beginning of the end.

Re:ahahahahahahaha... (2, Informative)

zurab (188064) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762136)

Good precendent to set though..

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.

Money? (4, Insightful)

Klar (522420) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761858)

Have the SCO made any money from all the legal actions they have taken? How do they still have the money to do all this?

Re:Money? (1)

Jim Starx (752545) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761905)

They've got the money from the liscenses they sold. Plus there was a story a while ago about how Microsoft was funding the whole deal.

Re:Money? (4, Interesting)

archen (447353) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761918)

Remember that SCO is still entrenched in many places. Some companies have specalty software that runs on SCO that hasn't been ported (or usually updated) to something else. SCO could easily just recieve money for the next 10 years ( although less than it used to and decreasing) from old customers who can't upgrade.

Re:Money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761939)

Microsoft backing, as discussed on slashdot endlessly, my dear.

Re:Money? (3, Interesting)

nametaken (610866) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761951)


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? (1)

drxs3v3n (790522) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761963)

Microsoft bought the company out sot hey could make windows services for unix wich is actualy a pos especialy when compared to cygwin

One word: micro$oft (0, Offtopic)

KRzBZ (707148) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762081)

Heed these words: though this is "the beginning of the end" of the anti-Linux-FUD-by-litigation campaign, it is only the prelude to the Patent Wars. Oh, and BTW - Darl, your Masters in Redmond are not happy with you. Better get busy on that pro-SCO spin press release...

Good Precedent (2, Interesting)

La_Boca (201988) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761859)

This should get the ball rolling nicely on getting their other claims thrown out.

Stock price already in a nosedive (5, Interesting)

GraZZ (9716) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761862)

Check out SCOX [google.com]. Down 7.2% for the day already.

Re:Stock price already in a nosedive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761938)

But as you can see here [yahoo.com] the legal actions and threats they've did increased their value quite nicely, my dear.

Re:Stock price already in a nosedive (4, Funny)

Euphonious Coward (189818) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762059)

Time to buy!

It's funny, you can see the zigzags in the downward slope -- people really are thinking that.

Only one thing to say. (1, Funny)

BlueCup (753410) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761864)

Pwn'ed.

Re:Only one thing to say. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762101)

Pwnd not Pwn'ed there is no such thing as apostrophe or punctuation

Misleading? (1)

bludstone (103539) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761869)

"SCO's claims Against Daimler-Chrysler Thrown Out"

"SCO has been all but thrown out"

Which one is it? :)

Re:Misleading? (1)

arieswind (789699) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761980)

all of their claims except one were thrown out, and the one remaining is that DC didnt file one credential in the required 30-day period, so its a minimal fine at most

Re:Misleading? (1)

void* (20133) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762126)

Hmm.

It was my understanding that there was no time limit in the contract, and that SCO is saying 'Thirty days was reasonable and they didn't do that'. As usual, trying to argue requirements into the contract that aren't there.

Well, if it's not in the contract, if you had to wait a few more months, so what?

So the only issue left is whether Diamler should have done it withing the thirty days SCO is whining about, and I expect they'll get spanked on that eventually too.

Re:Misleading? (1)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762153)

The way I look at it, if a contract says something must be done in a reasonable amount of time and one party wants to complain that the ting was not done in a reasonable amount of time, it should be up to the complaining party to prove that it was unreasonable rather than requiring the non-complaining party to prove it was reasonable. Either way, however, TSG should lose on this one.

Re:Misleading? (1)

Domino (12558) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761986)

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=all%20but

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.

Re:Misleading? (1)

grandbonheur (793780) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762114)

Though the headline was a bit misleading, implying by omission that all claims had been thrown out, I'd say that's acceptable, since the only claim not thrown out was entirely irrelevant to SCO's IP suit. SCO now has zero leverage with which to make itself a legal nuisance to DC, except court-protocal-bullshit-technicalities. Their sheer, insistent lameness has transcended absurdity, and attained a kind of tragic magnificence. Plus they lose. :D

Its been quiet for a while.. (3, Interesting)

halo1982 (679554) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761876)

Well this isn't surprising. But whats the status of SCO's other lawsuits, such as the one with IBM? Who else are they suing? I noticed AutoZone was on the list...anyone else?

Brief status, simplified (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762006)

  • Red Hat vs. SCO - stayed, at SCO's request, until the copyright issues are resolved in SCO vs IBM.
  • SCO vs. Autozone - stayed, at AutoZone's request, until the copyright issues are resolved in SCO vs IBM.
  • SCO vs. Damlier-Chrysler - SCO lost today
  • SCO vs IBM - summary judgement on copyright issue scheduled for August 4th.
  • SCO vs. the market - down to $4.24 today, a new 52-week low.

Re:Its been quiet for a while.. (2, Informative)

Siva (6132) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762020)

they're also suing Novell, and are being sued by RedHat.

AHAHAH Sux0rs (3, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761881)

Like really, we didnt see this coming.

would would be interesting to see is if this will drastically effect what happens now with their other lawsuits...

I hope to see a lot of the other judges reading the brief and throwing out the other cases too... Goodbye SCO.

Or, more likely, it will demoralize the board... (1)

RonBarr (655013) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762124)

... and they will be less inclined to aggressively pursue (translation: throw more money at) loosely concocted scams er lawsuits.

But how does this relate to Apple? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761883)

I'm not seeing the connection.

One question... (2, Interesting)

nametaken (610866) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761896)

This is looking a little bit to the future, but if a company goes bust... can't the remaining individuals still sue if they believe their copyrighted code is being misused?

I guess ultimately my question is, does SCO going belly up mean the end of these lawsuits?

Re:One question... (1)

annenk38 (163418) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761924)

It's easy: no company -> no money -> no lawsuits.

Re:One question... (3, Informative)

penguinstorm (575341) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761949)

it's not that easy

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... (2, Insightful)

taniwha (70410) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762040)

a good reason for a counter suit or two ... you can't buy a company out of bankruptcy without the creditor's OK .... in this case that might be IBM/Redhat ....

Re:One question... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762079)

SCO is a corporation. What's more it's one that bought the so called rights they so called hold. They didn't write much of anything and even if they had those rights would reside strictly with the corporation, having been work for hire.

There is no individual at SCO who holds any copyrights to UNIX code. Just like a former Ford employee (that's all the people who work at SCO are remember, even Darl) cannot sue as an individual for violating a patent held by Ford.

KFG

Re:One question... (1)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762138)

A previous poster noted that the copyright holder in this case is the corporation itself, not any individual, so if the company is gone, there is no one left to bring suit.

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 dismissed almost immediately based on precedent.

Re:One question... (2, Informative)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762154)

If you write code for a company, they own the copyright: it's called "work-for-hire" in the copyright claw. The entity that owns the copyrights is the "legal person" which is considered the author of the copyrighted work - if it dies, then in the dissolution of its assets, some creditor gets the copyrights to the copyrighted work as recompense.

could this be why (2, Informative)

aldousd666 (640240) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761913)

Their stock price took another dive in the past few hours? $4.20 at the time of this posting. I'm still waiting for it to go below a dollar. I actually expected it sooner, but it's been sticking near 5 for way too long.

Re:could this be why (1)

rolfpal (28193) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762028)

They have 5$ per share in cash, they are trading below 0 already.

In other words if they were to pay out all the money they have instead of investing in lawsuits they would pay out more than the shares are worth.

Re:could this be why (1)

jobsagoodun (669748) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762056)

They won't have $5 per share cash when they've paid out IBMs fees & award for patent infringement.

New suit (5, Funny)

glaserud (66891) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761933)

SCO thrown out of a Daimler-Chrysler? I see a faulty-door/locks-suit in the near future.

SCO: this is a clear victory for SCO! (5, Funny)

wardk (3037) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761937)

Time for SCO to deploy that famous Iraqi spokeperson.


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! (3, Funny)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762152)

chrysler's failure in this regard is abysmal. They want to tell the world changes thought - as a matter of fact, they do not respect the world, they want to tell taxpayers and the domestic public to keep them deceived. We will embroil them, confuse them and keep them in the quagmire. They have begun to tell more lies so that they might continue with the perpetration of their crimes. May they be accursed."

It's an Outrage! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9761965)

In China, it takes only a week from accusation to execution, but here we let SCumO blather on for so long before crumbling slowly! Why can't we be more like ... oh, wait, nevermind.

SCO had a tripod of cases... (5, Insightful)

SirFozzie (442268) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761967)

IBM, Autozone, and Daimler-Chrysler. SCO's future was shaky, but they claimed with victory in the three cases mentioned, they would be rock solid.

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.

It is unfortunate (0, Troll)

Tanaraus (464965) | more than 9 years ago | (#9761998)

that companies such as SCO think that they can get away with patent fraud like this.

Additionally, I think that if someone wants to give away something for free (like linux distributions) then they shouldn't have to worry about patents and such. Only if they are selling the product for profit should they be liable for lawsuit

Re:It is unfortunate (2, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762108)

This is not about patents, it's about copyright. And the fact that you give something away for free, does not mean you should be allowed to infringe on copyright (otherwise e.g. Microsoft would be allowed to infringe on the GPL by incorporating GPL'd code in a closed source Internet Explorer, back when they were giving it away for free).

Re:It is unfortunate (2, Insightful)

harlingtoxad (798873) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762125)

Additionally, I think that if someone wants to give away something for free (like linux distributions) then they shouldn't have to worry about patents and such. Only if they are selling the product for profit should they be liable for lawsuit Just because you don't profit from something doesn't mean you are exempt from patent laws. (I am NOT saying Linux is doing this!) You can't stay out of jail because you gave cocaine away but didn't sell it...

Wrong article title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762001)

I think this should have been "Sc0wned, beginning of the end"

Article Text (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762017)

Eyewitness Reports from the DC Hearing - SCO Trounced
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 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's presentation was clear-cut and concise, and he 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 asserted that he would be brief, which surprisingly enough he was. He felt that DC's SA gave them full access to the source code, the crown jewels if you will, 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. He also used his favorite tagline about the concepts, methods, etc that they are looking to protect in this case.

As Mr. Heise argued, Judge Chabot was looking less than impressed and certainly not entertained by SCO's argument. 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 be allowing SCO's methods and concepts out into the Linux community. He concluded that the fact that the client has not used the software in 7 years there is still no out from the original contract terms. He finalized that they would like to know, again, which CPU's that the source code is stored on, seeming not to believe that since decommissioning SCO's products, the software isn't loaded *anywhere* on DC's equipment.

At 0959, Mr. Rosenbaum was given another minute to answer SCO's arguments, and broadly stated, "Your Honor, this is a fishing expedition." In the original complaint, there was no claim that DC had exported the software or disclosed it to anyone outside the company, that the case is about DC's breach of section 2.05 of the SA. The language of the 2.05 section has nothing about a certification that DC kept the software confidential, at which point the judge looked rather amused.

At 1000 Judge Chabot issued her orders:

Summary disposition is granted except on the matter of breach of section 2.05, in that DC did not submit their response in a timely manner. All other claims were dismissed and she acknowledged that the contract doesn't require certifications that are outside the language of the contract. . . .

At this point, the court session was concluded and the judge left the room. I headed toward the door and proceeded to congratulate the DC attorneys. The SCO attorneys all looked rather discomfitted by the Judge's rulings, realizing that she just gutted their case. I could almost hear the screaming all the way from Utah.

So, there it is. I'm hoisting a beer in celebration as I write this. Congratulations again to Daimler Chrysler and their attorneys for very successfully trouncing this case, whittling it down to the only possible claim that SCO could have -- that DC should have answered up more quickly.

----

REPORT 2:

As far as I can determine, the DC's request for summary disposition has been granted. The only remaining issue is whether 30 days is an adequate time to respond.

Now take it from me with a pinch of salt, because I have never been in a court and don't understand legalese too well.

Before the judge came in, the clerk told the parties that they had 5 minutes each to plead the case. DC went on first. DC stuck to the facts. Never mentioned Linux.

SCO was up second. SCO went beyond the boundaries of the case, just as in the filed doucments, about "just specifying a list of CPU is not enough" , "what if the was exported to Germany for e.g., since Daimler is German" "even if it isn't used, but sitting on a server somewhere, who knows what will happen", "what if they used the source code and made derivative works out of it", "what if they contributed to Linux?" , "DC has to certify all these issues we are raising now.". So they went on like this for a while on topics that aren't supposedly covered in section 2.05 or the agreement. DC did a brief rebuttal, mainly about the fact that it's about 2.05, and that all the arguments that SCO is putting forth have nothing to do with 2.05, DC also mentioned to the court that SCO was on a fishing expedition by bringing up all the other issues.

Then the judge ruled without further questioning. Apparenly, she had done her homework and read up about it and made up her mind, and none of the morning's arguments changed her mind. She had a prepared ruling and read from it, That's why I couldn't get it all inside my head, she read it too fast. But I seem to hear that except for the 30 day limit specified by SCO, DC's motion for summary disposition was granted, effectively throwing out SCO's case. I seem to hear that SCO could litigate whether 30 days was adequate or not. As for the other contract issues not covered by 2.05, the judge says, well, it is not part of this case. I will have to wait for the official ruling transcripts to be absolutely sure about what I heard.

Four attorneys from DC were there, and four from SCO. Heise was there. There was another attorney who came in separately and introduced herself to the entire DC team, but sat apart and did not partake in the arguments or in the other cases for the day. I suspect that she might be from IBM or Novell or Redhat.

I had the impression that Judge Chabot was a no-nonsense type that did not suffer fools too well. I got this impression from the other cases that she was ruling this same day before this SCO case -- she was pretty sharp to the lawyers. But on the SCO case itself, she did not need to cut off any of the attorneys on either side.

Neither side brought up the other cases, IBM, Novell, or Redhat. Linux got mentioned only by SCO in a contrived way during SCO's arguments.

SCO provides Much wanted recreation ... (2, Insightful)

flyingace (162593) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762019)

SCO provides much wanted recreation ...to my busy days. These guys are down right funny, when it comes to how they are running their business.

The text from Groklaw (-1, Redundant)

timlewis_atlanta (195776) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762072)

Eyewitness Reports from the DC Hearing - SCO Trounced
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 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's presentation was clear-cut and concise, and he 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 asserted that he would be brief, which surprisingly enough he was. He felt that DC's SA gave them full access to the source code, the crown jewels if you will, 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. He also used his favorite tagline about the concepts, methods, etc that they are looking to protect in this case.

As Mr. Heise argued, Judge Chabot was looking less than impressed and certainly not entertained by SCO's argument. 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 be allowing SCO's methods and concepts out into the Linux community. He concluded that the fact that the client has not used the software in 7 years there is still no out from the original contract terms. He finalized that they would like to know, again, which CPU's that the source code is stored on, seeming not to believe that since decommissioning SCO's products, the software isn't loaded *anywhere* on DC's equipment.

At 0959, Mr. Rosenbaum was given another minute to answer SCO's arguments, and broadly stated, "Your Honor, this is a fishing expedition." In the original complaint, there was no claim that DC had exported the software or disclosed it to anyone outside the company, that the case is about DC's breach of section 2.05 of the SA. The language of the 2.05 section has nothing about a certification that DC kept the software confidential, at which point the judge looked rather amused.

At 1000 Judge Chabot issued her orders:

Summary disposition is granted except on the matter of breach of section 2.05, in that DC did not submit their response in a timely manner. All other claims were dismissed and she acknowledged that the contract doesn't require certifications that are outside the language of the contract. . . .

At this point, the court session was concluded and the judge left the room. I headed toward the door and proceeded to congratulate the DC attorneys. The SCO attorneys all looked rather discomfitted by the Judge's rulings, realizing that she just gutted their case. I could almost hear the screaming all the way from Utah.

So, there it is. I'm hoisting a beer in celebration as I write this. Congratulations again to Daimler Chrysler and their attorneys for very successfully trouncing this case, whittling it down to the only possible claim that SCO could have -- that DC should have answered up more quickly.

REPORT 2:

As far as I can determine, the DC's request for summary disposition has been granted. The only remaining issue is whether 30 days is an adequate time to respond.

Now take it from me with a pinch of salt, because I have never been in a court and don't understand legalese too well.

Before the judge came in, the clerk told the parties that they had 5 minutes each to plead the case. DC went on first. DC stuck to the facts. Never mentioned Linux.

SCO was up second. SCO went beyond the boundaries of the case, just as in the filed doucments, about "just specifying a list of CPU is not enough" , "what if the was exported to Germany for e.g., since Daimler is German" "even if it isn't used, but sitting on a server somewhere, who knows what will happen", "what if they used the source code and made derivative works out of it", "what if they contributed to Linux?" , "DC has to certify all these issues we are raising now.". So they went on like this for a while on topics that aren't supposedly covered in section 2.05 or the agreement. DC did a brief rebuttal, mainly about the fact that it's about 2.05, and that all the arguments that SCO is putting forth have nothing to do with 2.05, DC also mentioned to the court that SCO was on a fishing expedition by bringing up all the other issues.

Then the judge ruled without further questioning. Apparenly, she had done her homework and read up about it and made up her mind, and none of the morning's arguments changed her mind. She had a prepared ruling and read from it, That's why I couldn't get it all inside my head, she read it too fast. But I seem to hear that except for the 30 day limit specified by SCO, DC's motion for summary disposition was granted, effectively throwing out SCO's case. I seem to hear that SCO could litigate whether 30 days was adequate or not. As for the other contract issues not covered by 2.05, the judge says, well, it is not part of this case. I will have to wait for the official ruling transcripts to be absolutely sure about what I heard.

Four attorneys from DC were there, and four from SCO. Heise was there. There was another attorney who came in separately and introduced herself to the entire DC team, but sat apart and did not partake in the arguments or in the other cases for the day. I suspect that she might be from IBM or Novell or Redhat.

I had the impression that Judge Chabot was a no-nonsense type that did not suffer fools too well. I got this impression from the other cases that she was ruling this same day before this SCO case -- she was pretty sharp to the lawyers. But on the SCO case itself, she did not need to cut off any of the attorneys on either side.

Neither side brought up the other cases, IBM, Novell, or Redhat. Linux got mentioned only by SCO in a contrived way during SCO's arguments.

eyewitness account #1 without the commentary (4, Interesting)

spoonyfork (23307) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762083)

The following is the eyewitness account report #1 by eggplant37 from the groklaw article [groklaw.net] but without the stupid commentary.

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 be allowing SCO's methods and concepts out into the Linux community. He concluded that the fact that the client has not used the software in 7 years there is still no out from the original contract terms. He finalized that they would like to know, again, which CPU's that the source code is stored on, seeming not to believe that since decommissioning SCO's products, the software isn't loaded anywhere on DC's equipment.

At 0959, Mr. Rosenbaum was given another minute to answer SCO's arguments, and broadly stated, "Your Honor, this is a fishing expedition." In the original complaint, there was no claim that DC had exported the software or disclosed it to anyone outside the company, that the case is about DC's breach of section 2.05 of the SA. The language of the 2.05 section has nothing about a certification that DC kept the software confidential.

At 1000 Judge Chabot issued her orders:

Summary disposition is granted except on the matter of breach of section 2.05, in that DC did not submit their response in a timely manner. All other claims were dismissed and she acknowledged that the contract doesn't require certifications that are outside the language of the contract. At this point, the court session was concluded and the judge left the room.

The trap has been set (5, Insightful)

craw (6958) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762089)

The judge set up a trap for poor old SCO by not ruling on the issue of not complying within 30 days. By dismissing all the other charges, she essentially cut off any meaningful avenues in discovery that SCO would have likely pursued. This is not going to be a fishing expedition for SCO.

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.

Pronunciation Guide (4, Funny)

DavidBrown (177261) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762111)

In America, Daimler-Chrysler is pronounced "Daym-ler Cry-sler".

In Germany, however, the Chrysler is silent.

biznat34 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9762121)

yes! [samag.com] 1n the as liitle overhead play area Try not Ransom for their

I wish... (4, Funny)

brufleth (534234) | more than 9 years ago | (#9762139)

I wish this case was handled by someone like Judge Judy who would entertain all of us with her insulting tirade about how SCO has wasted everyone's time and money and how they should be ashamed of themselves.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...