|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] This is scary. . .
|
I think it's also important to note that David Boies has abandoned the SCO
case in favor of pursuing the AMEX case against Visa, Mastercard, and a
dozen or so major banks for anti-trust violations. The SCO case is all but
dismissed..
E
----- Original Message -----
From: "Art Alexion" <art.alexion@verizon.net>
To: <plug@lists.phillylinux.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PLUG] This is scary. . .
>
> From: Michael Lazin
>
> > I am wondering, besides the SCO case, are
> > there any other lawsuits claiming that linux violates patents?
> >
>
> >From a newsletter I got the other day (regarding the SCO litigation)
>
> Editor's Note: Toasted SCO
>
> SCO's tenure as the most despised tech company in the world may soon be
over. As a matter of fact, its tenure as a company may soon be over, period,
if a Novell legal filing posted on Groklaw last week turns out to be nearly
as big as it seems to be.
>
> Novell's legal filing on Groklaw.
>
> Novell executives, you may recall, have long insisted that when the
company sold its Unix code to what was then the Santa Cruz Organization, it
retained the copyrights. The modern-day SCO, which is pursuing a $5 billion
lawsuit against IBM for contributing SCO-copyrighted Unix code to Linux,
didn't like this very much. No copyrights, most likely no lawsuit, either.
>
> SCO's solution: sue Novell for falsely claiming to own the Unix
copyrights, something legal types call "slander of title."
>
> Novell's response: make SCO look like a bunch of bozos by shooting their
legal case full of more holes than John Dillinger's hat.
>
> Mission accomplished.
>
> Last week, according to Groklaw (if you don't know what they're all about,
go see for yourself), Novell produced minutes from a 1995 board of directors
meeting clearly stating that the company retained its Unix copyrights. Since
SCO has to prove that Novell's ownership claims are a "knowing falsehood,"
this document is more than just a smoking gun--it's a smoking cannon.
>
> Things were already looking bad for SCO, since Novell has also produced,
among other documents, a May 2003 letter from SCO asking Novell to transfer
the Unix copyrights SCO supposedly already owned. SCO's attorneys have
soldiered on through this charade with all the sincerity $31 million can
buy, but it must be getting tough for these guys to show up in court with
straight faces.
>
> SCO isn't the only company in the world to turn litigation into a business
model, but it was the most visible. Most of the legal pundits I've seen
weigh in on this case, however, are convinced the company's
ambulance-chasing days are over. Unless SCO figures out fast how to earn an
honest living--a remote possibility, given the enemies the company has
made--it might be time to dig a fresh hole in the corporate graveyard.
>
> Matthew McKenzie
> Editor, Linux Pipeline
> mattcmp@sonic.net
> www.LinuxPipeline.com
>
> Assuming McKenzie's analysis is correct, MS is different because
litigation is not its only source of income. That said, patent litigation
may not hold the benefits MS expects.
>
> --
> _____________________________
> artAlexion
> art[dot]alexion[at]verizon[dot]net
> Sent unsigned from web interface.
> Confirm source if important.
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
> Philadelphia Linux Users Group --
http://www.phillylinux.org
> Announcements -
http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
> General Discussion --
http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|