OFF-TOPIC - The SCO suit
Karsten M. Self
kmself at ix.netcom.com
Sat Nov 22 02:11:23 UTC 2003
on Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:38:42AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen (lrosen at rosenlaw.com) wrote:
> On Thursday, November 13, 2003 3:41 AM, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> > Could not any of the copyright holders to the Linux Kernel sources
> > (I understand that there are several, since Linus does not
> > seek assignment) initiate appropriate proceedings against SCO's
> > claims against the several Fortune 500 companies??
> > Surely, there is no claim that _every_ file in the kernel sources
> > is infringing; so far as I can understand the pleadings. But, the
> > claim for royalties ( or whatever against the fortune 500 cos)
> > does not restrict the claim to use of the infringing files.
> > Hence, the last paragraph (the proviso) has no application.
> > There have been enough public statements from SCO's officers to
> > invite such litigation. I am also aware that the owner of
> > copyright in majority of the files making up the kernel sources
> > is at present in the US .... thus making the job easier ...
> Why would we bother? We'd be in the same court, with the same attorneys,
> and the same issues to resolve, as SCO/IBM are already. Does the open
> source community need yet another lawsuit? /Larry Rosen
It's a matter of strategy more than legality.
Red Hat has sued for injunctive relief largely to speed the process
along. If Caldera/SCO can be made to reveal their evidence -- or far
more likely, lack thereof -- in advance of the March, 2005 court date
for the IBM case, we can watch this whole thing go away and get on with
I suspect this case is going to be rather more about funding sources and
running Caldera/SCO through its legal "warchest", and of compelling it
to spill its evidence (or, again, lack) on an accelerated schedule, than
it will be about the specifics of the underlying complaint, per se.
Example: speculation on one of the commentary sites was that the latest
funding disclosures regarding terms of Boies remuneration give his law
firm a 2-3% equity stake in the firm. At what point does he cease being
a lawyer and start being what he represents, himself. Discussion with a
legally-savvy friend raised the possibility that IBM seek to depose
Boies as a witness. While he might not be able to tell much, he'd be
unable to serve both as counsel and witness on the case. Meaning
Caldera/SCO had just lost $20m - $30m worth of warchest on tainted
counsel. While this specific eventuality may not come to pass, I'd put
certain money on the fact that tactics which serve largely to exhaust
or lock up our Lindon friends' limited resources likely will.
After all, flipping sides, Caldera/SCO has done relatively little itself
within scope of law -- the bulk of its actions have been on the PR and
financing fronts. Legal actions have largely consisted of creating PR
fodder and stalling real progress.
Stop thinking like a lawyer, Larry. Think like someone who wants to
_win_ this thing ;-)
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Bush/Cheney '04: Four More Wars!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-discuss