Latest Juiceless Developments

One large company plays perversely pragmatic pussy, The Judge says “show me the code”… AGAIN… as Darl’s war machine sets it sights on DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone… with no real ammunition.

Updated: a lawyer’s response, and comments on Micro$oft’s alleged financial backing. actually paid SCO for Linux licenses
The CEO claims “pragmatic analysis” and the delivering of “certainty to our customers”, but I’m not so sure. While it’s obvious that the company is making hand over clenched-fist, what to pr0n webmasters [possibly NSFW] care about the OS their boxes run when the cash and their customers keep coming? In the story, SCO admits that EV1 “paid a lower price per server” than their laughable $699 per-processor licensing fee… but how much do you want to bet that EV1 was made an offer they couldn’t refuse?

SCO: (to the whole Linux community) We’re going to sue you.
laughter and knee-slapping ensue
SCO: (to EV1) We’re going to sue you… unless you agree to pay us a deeply-slashed $50-100 per server, and allow us to publically out you as pussies when it’s convenient for us to do so… say, right before we start suing other companies.
EV1: Um… since our customers don’t have faith in our corporation like those of IBM, HP and Novell… and won’t really give a fuck… sure! (bending over)

The Judge has again ordered SCO to show code to substantiate its claim(s) against IBM
Yeah, so she did it the first time back in December and gave them 30 days to do it. Apparently, there’s no punishment for violating a judge’s orders. So, she has to do it again. She’s also ordered IBM to show their lines of code, too. I’ve been following this whole thing for way too long, and the over-arching tenor of each company’s actions and statements leads me to believe that IBM is more than ready to do so, yet SCO has been dancing around the “prove yourself” issue as much as possible, for as long as possible. I don’t really have any faith in SCO to comply, but maybe Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells will kick them in the ass if they don’t.

Then, SCO announces a copyright infringement lawsuit against AutoZone and a software agreement violation lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler
AutoZone in Nevada, DaimlerChrysler in Michigan. Neither of which is in Utah, where the IBM lawsuit is happening. Shotgun approach: different jurisdictions will proceed at separate paces, independent of each other. Calling all lawyers (I know 3 personally, probably none of which read this site, damnit, and groklaw is farked): Is this a ploy to gain precedence via the new lawsuits as ammunition in their epic suing of IBM? Or, can the NV and MI judges defer until after findings in UT? Afterthought: I’ve emailed one of those lawyers, so I’ll update if/when she responds.

Either way, it stinks worse than a skunk in heat (via Fark).

UPDATE March 5, 2003

The ever-reliable, real-life lawyer weighs in. She says:

I don’t know if they could defer or not. I don’t think so though, b/c each state’s judicial system is independent of the other states. If the first lawsuit is ongoing and has been for some time, and the second two are just filed, then it’s likely that A v. B may resolve before the other two (seeing as the other 2 may turn into epics as well). So maybe then A can use the decision from A v. B, not for precedent b/c other states rulings don’t really mean shit, but for persuasiveness.

For example, if I have an issue in Va, that the Virginia courts haven’t ruled on yet, but I find law from Illinois and Missouri, I can cite it to the judge and argue that he should follow. But b/c it’s not Virginia case law, the judge can disagree with those state’s ruling and is not required to follow suit. However, if the suits are in Federal Court, then you argue the law of that circuit, so if the other two federal court decisions are from states in your circuit, you have a better chance of persuading the judge. And if he doesn’t agree, then when you appeal it before the Circuit Court of Appeals, you do have precedent, or the Court then creates it, ending the split decisions.

Also, A may not have been able to find B and C in Utah to sue them there. When you sue, you have different kinds of jurisdiction: subject matter (which state has jurisdiction over the actual claims) and personal (meaning what court can you bring the defendant before). So for a breach of contract, you can file where the breach occurred. But then I have to make sure that that Court where the breach occurred can assert personal jurisdiction over the defendant (and many times this is where long arm jurisdiction comes into play).

It may be that A sued B in Utah (see, I read your website) b/c that’s where B can be found, or where the alleged claims took place; then A wants to sue C and D, but neither C and D have any ties to Utah and/or the claims have no relation to Utah, so A is forced to sue them where it can find them and where they can be subject to the court’s jurisdiction, but also has to make sure that the Court its suing in has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Truly, A probably would rather have sued them in Utah; b/c then any ruling in any of the cases would create precedent for the other cases.

Thanks, Ever-Reliable, Real-Life Lawyer!


2 thoughts on “Latest Juiceless Developments

  1. There was a “leaked” memo that seems to indicate M$ was funneling tons of cash into SCO, but it’s been publically refuted, of course. It’s probably all about the money flowing through channels that can’t be identified unless one of the companies along the way was under investigation (think Enron), so we may never know.

Comments are closed.