SUSE Requests Arbitration with SCO 155
rm69990 writes "In response to SCO's amended complaint against Novell alleging copyright infringement, Novell subsidiary SUSE has requested from the International Chamber of Commerce that SCO be barred from asserting copyright over SUSE Linux due to the UnitedLinux agreement between Caldera, SUSE, Connectiva and Turbolinux. This agreement requires that SCO arbitrate with SUSE instead of filing claims, removes the copyright from any work SCO produced while in UnitedLinux, gives SUSE sublicensing rights to SCO's copyrights, and constitutes an SCO commitment that any code released under an OSS license in UnitedLinux remain Open Source. Novell has filed a motion to stay SCO's claims against Novell until the outcome of this arbitration. So now it looks like Linux users are protected both through the APA between Novell and SCO, but the UnitedLinux agreement as well."
Not quite. (Score:4, Informative)
No, it looks like Linux users are protected through both the APA and UnitedLinix depending on the outsome of this motion. You can file motions all you'd like. That doesn't mean they'll be carried out.
Other fun details about these filings (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not quite. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Not quite. (Score:5, Informative)
One other thing in that motion is that Novell asked for the money from the Microsoft and Sun deals to be placed in trust. This because the apa contract says that sco isn't supposed to be able to grant Unix licensees without Novells approval. If this happens, good bye SCO.
Re:What phase is this in? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060405
IBM says to the Judge
Re:Befuddled (Score:2, Informative)
Becuase they have been, and are being, paid for it. Microsoft donated very generously to SCO's cause in order to create an anticompetitive slander generator, and SCO is just delivering on what has been paid for.
And, of course, as long as SCO keeps up the charade, not only does SCO continue to get manna from heaven in the form of random mystery investment, but SCO also gets to sustain their business by constantly pumping their stock up and down-- whereas as soon as the lawsuit ends, SCO pretty much has to go insolvent, since SCO has no viable products but does have a number of pending and scary-looking counterclaims as a result of their PR antics...
Two reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Primary reason is that it's a ploy by Microsoft [eweek.com] to discredit open source (Google for "Baystar" to learn more). Even though the case has no merit, they want to plant a bug in the ear of every PHB out there. "Doesn't Linux have some kinda legal trouble?" In that light, they have been successful somewhat.
Secondary reason, it's a stock [zdnet.com] scam [linuxtoday.com]. The longer they keep the company going, the longer they can bilk the shareholders for more cash. It's probably one of the most blatant examples of insider trading ever, but since it's small potatoes it has somehow flown under the radar. Here's hoping that changes soon.
Wrong case (Score:3, Informative)
I can't wait to see SCO get handed its head in any case [sic], but these are two separate complaints from SCO.
novell lawyers (Score:1, Informative)
Re:It gets much, much worse (Score:2, Informative)
Not quite.
This "new" contract revelation only applies to the updated/new claim brought by SCO - it doesnt spoil their ongoing IBM case with regard to their other (bogus) claims.
Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't know much about law, do you? Delaying is as easy as pushing pawns around. What's "plumb pleasin'" for PJ is that in this particular instance, SCO may have pushed up the wrong pawn in their 2nd Amended Complaint, opening themselves up to not fewer than 17 affirmative defenses deftly outlined by Novell's lawyers that they could have avoided had they been a little more on the ball. Hardly geniuses...
Where are the editors? (Score:3, Informative)
More and more frequently, I'm thinking that slashdot is becoming a mad magazine parody of itself.
Arbitration in Paris (Score:4, Informative)
PJ, with a spot-on comment (my bold):
If you were given a choice between having a GPL-related case heard in Europe in a fast-track arbitration based on clear contracts or let it drag out for year after painful year in Utah, what would you choose? Anyway, someone on Novell's team at some point noticed that the UnitedLinux agreements, which Caldera signed, require such arbitration of certain types of claims, likely even designating the jurisdiction, and once SCO filed its 2nd Amended Complaint alleging that distribution of SUSE Linux was copyright infringement, it opened up the door to this request for arbitration in France.
Look carefully at the details (Score:3, Informative)
The "new" contract revelation doesn't actually change the details of the suit any. What it does change is the venue. As a result of the "new" contract clauses being brought into play, a small part of the entire SCO-Novell-IBM-Redhat rigamarole, specifically an old contract between Caldera and SUSE, now gets kicked entirely out of the court system and dumped into arbitration. This is important because the rules of arbitration and the rules of a court of law are quite different. Specifically, arbitration is speedy, and hard to delay. Considering the complexity of this situation, and SCO's determination to delay things as much as possible, speed is very important. Remember that the IBM vs SCO court case is still tied up just with IBM trying to get SCO to specify exactly what exactly it was that SCO thinks IBM stole.
Basically, before Novell played the arbitration card, this contract was still important, but it was waiting in line behind a long, LONG list of other issues, and thus ran the risk of nobody seriously looking at it for years or, if SCO self-destructed before anybody could complete discovery issues, not at all. Now, suddenly, this contract is cutting to the front of the line. And that means that certain issues that might otherwise have been decided in another place or in another way are going to be decided here, now, because of this contract.
Most significantly. From Groklaw:Note that these contracts would have been signed after Caldera had already purchased their UNIX properties.
So, if SUSE gets their way, then-- possibly even before IBM gets the chance to complete summary judgements in their case-- this arbitration will rule that SCO has by contract forfeited their right to assert intellectual property claims against the Linux kernel, and the nature of the situation could make that rule apply not just to Novell, but to everyone. Courts can consider arbitration rulings to be binding. So this absolutely can have effect on the IBM case.
And if SCO's long-standing claims against Linux are short-circuited by a legally binding declaration that SCO had forfeited the right to bring claims against the Linux kernel by contracts signed before the allegations even started, that is definitely, as the top level post puts it, a "knew or should have known" kind of situation.
Re:It gets much, much worse (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Contracts :o\ (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It gets much, much worse (Score:2, Informative)
The only things on that page that is clearly a basis for a lawsuit (to me) are #7 and #8 where the coffee was dropped or spilled onto someone by an employee.
She had the coffee. She knew it was hot. She decided that despite the temperature of the coffee she would put it between her legs. She then got burned. I don't care if the coffee was as hot as the sun. If she knew it was hot when she put it between her legs then it's her fault. I feel bad for her, but I still don't believe she had any reason to sue.
Re:It gets much, much worse (Score:3, Informative)
Not only did she put something very hot between her legs (don't quibble about the temperature - hot coffee is hot coffee, right up to boiling hot coffee), she did so in the confines of a car seat. Then she pried off the lid while squeezing the cup with her thighs. The cup collapsed. If you want to do acrobatics with hot coffee, don't sue when you get burned.
It was a stupid lawsuit. And most people know it.