Robert McMillan has an article on the DaimlerChrysler case. DaimlerChrysler sent two letters to SCO. They suggested they contact DC to see about dropping the lawsuit. Here's why: DaimlerChrysler is "not even using and has not used the licensed software for more than seven years."
Here is the complete filing for DaimlerChrysler, so you can read it in full. The Memorandum in Support, which tells the whole story, begins on page 11, followed by the two letters, beginning on page 33, as well as cases in support of their position. No wonder the IT department at DaimlerChrysler was on the floor laughing when news of the lawsuit arrived, with its allegations that DC had refused to provide SCO with a "certificate of compliance" over its use of Unix.
Here is what Mr. McBride said was the reason they were suing DaimlerChrysler when they first announced it, and you probably recall SCO sued AutoZone around the same time, saying SCO was copying the methods of the RIAA:
"The company was going to 're-educate' people about its rights and it expected to see the same fall in illegal usage that the RIAA has seen after its actions.
"At the same time, McBride announced the company had lodged a second lawsuit in Oakland against DaimlerChrysler for 'failure to respond' to SCO's demand that the company provide a certificate of compliance with its software licensing agreement. McBride later admitted that the DaimlerChrysler suit was based on the company's contribution toward Linux and that it was continuing to work on the open-source OS. 'They need to confirm one way or another,' McBride stated."
Now DC has disdainfully replied:
"'DaimlerChrysler has provided SCO with the only certification required under the licence demonstrating that DaimlerChrysler is not even using and has not used the licensed software for more than seven years,' the response stated."
Think this incredible blunder on SCO's part in choosing a victim to sue might have something to do with BayStar's angst?