SCO starts yelling in italics on page two of its brief that "DCX has conceded [the certification] was required by its very conduct in supplying a certification", so I guess someone should respond to that assertion.

Daimler has clearly never conceded that a certification was required. The certification was made by Norman Powell to USL, and a copy was supplied to SCO by Susan Unger, who attached it to this wonderful letter inviting SCO to go fuck itself:

[text and markup courtesy of Steve Martin at groklaw]

DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Susan J. Unger
Sr. Vice President & CIO
Information Technology Management

April 6, 2004

Bill Broderick
Director, Software Licensing
The SCO Group, Inc.
[address]

RE: Your letter to "Chrysler Motors Corporation" dated December 18, 2003
regarding "AT&T/SCO License No. SOFT-01341"

Dear Mr. Broderick:

DaimlerChrysler Corporation ("DaimlerChrysler"), successor in interest to Chrysler Motors Corporation, understands from the lawsuit filed against DaimlerChrysler in the Oakland County Circuit Court (Case No. 04-056587-ck) that The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") believes that:

1. SCO "owns" certain rights under the Software Agreement referenced above ("SA"), and,
2. SCO's referenced letter was a proper request for a certified statement under Section 2.05 of the SA.

SCO is not a party to the SA, and DaimlerChrysler has no knowledge of any assignment of the rights of the Licensor under the SA to SCO. According to our records, the SA was assigned from AT&T Information Systems Inc. to UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. on or about November 1, 1990. Notwithstanding these facts, SCO has filed its suit against DaimlerChrysler. SCO's suit appears to be based on an uninformed and inaccurate assessment of DaimlerChrysler's conduct. As a result, and without waiving any of its rights under the SA or under applicable law, including without limitation its right to assert that SCO has no rights under the SA, that SCO has no right to seek the certified statement that its letter requests, that Licensor has waived any right to seek a certified statement under the SA, and that SCO has intentionally filed a meritless lawsuit for purposes of restraining competition, DaimlerChrysler provides the attached information to SCO.

To the extent that SCO's suit is intended merely to obtain the information called for by Section 2.05 of the SA, all such information is contained on the attachment to this letter. Accordingly, DaimlerChrysler believes that this letter should cause SCO to dismiss its suit. Please contact DaimlerChrysler's counsel to discuss and arrange for this dismissal.

Very truly yours,

Susan J. Unger