SCO Loses Unix Copyright Claim
The SCO Group has been dealt a setback in its quest to hold customers accountable for its copyright claims: A Michigan judge dismissed all but one of the software vendor's claims against auto giant DaimlerChrysler, says a representative of the defendant.
"We are pleased with the judge's ruling and we look forward to finally resolving the one open issue," says Mary Gauthier, DaimlerChrysler spokesperson.
SCO filed the lawsuit in March with the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, Michigan. The company claimed DaimlerChrysler had refused to provide a "certification of compliance" showing it had continued to abide by a Unix licensing agreement from November 1990.
DaimlerChrysler responded in April, asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit and claiming that there was "no genuine issue of material fact" in SCO's case. The judge's action Wednesday granted that motion.
The automaker included two letters in its April filings. One letter certified that DaimlerChrysler no longer uses the software licensed under the 1990 agreement. The second, addressed to SCO, argued SCO had no right to seek such certification, but said the first letter "should cause SCO to dismiss its suit."
The one "open issue" remaining in the lawsuit is whether SCO suffered damages as a result of receiving the certification letter in April rather than in January, Gauthier says.
The letters were received by SCO only after a 30-day deadline for certification had passed, according to Blake Stowell, an SCO spokesperson.
"When their deadline for certifying passed without any response, we assumed that they had not certified because they could not certify," he says. "Ita??s unfortunate that, only after we filed litigation against them, they finally decided to certify their compliance."
Responding to SCO's original letter within 30 days might have been difficult. The letter, sent in December, went to Chrysler's former corporate headquarters in Highland Park, Michigan, according to DaimlerChrysler's court filings.
"DaimlerChrysler headquarters moved out of Highland Park several years ago," Gauthier says.
While Stowell declines to say whether SCO will now drop the case, it seems unlikely the software company will have much success seeking damages for the four-month delay in delivery of the certification letter, says Jeff Norman, an intellectual property partner with the Chicago law firm Kirkland Ellis.
"Unless they amend the complaint or somehow overturn the judge's ruling, I don't think it makes any sense to pursue," he says.
SCO could keep the case alive by adding new claims to its complaint or by asking the judge to reconsider his decision, Norman adds.
SCO will now consider its options for any next steps, but the case will have no impact on its ongoing litigation with IBM, Novell, or AutoZone, Stowell says.
"The biggest mistake that anyone can make with today's ruling is to assume that the thing that happened today with DaimlerChrysler will have some sort of impact on our AutoZone or Novell or IBM cases," he says.