Looks like SCO has been caught in a lie, and Red Hat smells blood in the water.
From a document filed by RH in Red Hat v. SCO:
From a document filed by RH in Red Hat v. SCO:
"SCO's June 17 effort to explain away the numerous inconsistent statements it has made to this Court and to other federal courts around the country again make plain SCO's litigation strategy. SCO's ultimate objective is to delay for as long as possible resolution of the copyright claims that are at the heart of each of the pending lawsuits. By avoiding final adjudication of its copyright claims, SCO can continue to foster fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace about the long-term viability of Linux. SCO thereby seeks either to discourage users from adopting and implementing that operating system or to induce them to pay SCO a punitive licensing fee."Article on Groklaw (a truly awesome site): http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040710084344261
- Current Mood:fascinated
- Current Music:311 - Love Song
Profile
brentdax- Brent Dax
- Architechies Touch Software
Comments
Eventually, though, they figured out that there wasn't any money in selling Unix, so they started suing. Last year they came up with a claim that people have stolen code from Unix and put it in Linux; they sued AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler (two companies who switched from Unix to Linux) as well as IBM (who they claimed did the copying).
The whole legal thing has simply exploded since then--Red Hat (a Linux vendor) sued to get a judgement stating that Linux doesn't infringe on Unix's copyright. Then Novell said that SCO didn't really own the Unix copyrights in the first place, and SCO sued to resolve that claim.
Meanwhile, a year later, SCO has yet to reveal even one line of code copied from Unix to Linux. Recently, they've come up with this bizarre theory that IBM put some code into its version of Unix (supposedly giving the copyright on that code to SCO) and then copied it into Linux. So they've been asking for more and more IBM source--but even that isn't turning up any copied code. Basically, they've got nothing to back up their claims, but they don't want to admit it.
This particular quote is about a bit of doublespeak on SCO's part: SCO convinced the RH v. SCO court that they should stay the case, because SCO v. IBM will answer the question of copyrights. Then they argued in SCO v. AutoZone that that case should continue, because SCO v. IBM would not answer the copyright question. So Red Hat is saying "wait a minute, why are they saying one thing in this court and the opposite in that one?"