Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO v. Novell Goes to Trial Today In Utah

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning dept.

Caldera 134

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The day many have been waiting for has finally arrived, the day SCO gets torn apart in court by Novell. Each side gets 10 hours, and Novell managed to get them to agree to a stipulation (PDF) that should make things go a lot faster. With any luck, we will soon have an official ruling that SCO does not own much of anything and then we just have to wait for SCO to exhaust its appeals. This would've been over a long time ago, but SCO filed for bankruptcy on the eve of trial, stopping the clock. One can only wonder what trick they will try to pull this time."

cancel ×

134 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great Day (2)

ozamosi (615254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236742)

SCO dies, Microsoft's revenue is down, and even the weather is nice.

Re:Great Day (2, Informative)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236908)

SCO ain't dead yet. They've proven time and again that no tactic is too outrageous to let this thing drag on as long as they possibly can. If anybody can find a way to postpone the inevitable even further it's the SCOundrels.

Re:Great Day (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236912)

If this trend continues you may even get laid this evening (ducks). :-)

Re:Great Day (5, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236950)

If this trend continues you may even get laid this evening (ducks). :-)
I think in most of the country duck fornication is illegal.

Re:Great Day (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237020)

I think in most of the country duck fornication is illegal.

Well, to be fair, we are talking about Utah here...

Re:Great Day (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237174)

I think in most of the country duck fornication is illegal. Well, to be fair, we are talking about Utah here...

One of the most morally-conservative states in the nation -- duck fornication is definitely illegal.

Re:Great Day (3, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237366)

Unless it's more than one duck.

Re:Great Day (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237492)

There is snot-infused Coke all over my keyboard...

Re:Great Day (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238978)

But not if its a Flock of Seagulls.

Quack! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237370)

Even between consenting adult ducks?

Re:Great Day (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238338)

Exactly. But having multiple wives under the age of 15 is A-OKAY!

Re:Great Day (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#23239842)

Exactly. But having multiple wives under the age of 15 is A-OKAY!

You're confusing Utah with Texas.

Re:Great Day (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 6 years ago | (#23240170)

Weren't the polygamists from Arizona before they moved to Texas!? How did the discussion turn to this when the trial is in Utah? So confused...

Re:Great Day (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 6 years ago | (#23240450)

Well, they WERE from a Mormon sect...

-uso.

Re:Great Day (5, Funny)

EvilAlphonso (809413) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237122)

Not sure it is illegal, it is fowl for sure tho...

Re:Great Day (2, Funny)

Remloc (1165839) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237160)

Hahahaha!! You quack me up!

Re:Great Day (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237312)

You're never going to get any chicks with that sense of humor.

Re:Great Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23239564)

Silly Pedofile.. only eBaum's like baby chickens.

Re:Great Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23240016)

There is no need to egg him about it, though.

Re:Great Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237448)

And have you ever tried to find a minister to perform a duck marriage? You say you want to make an honest duck of her and they look at you like you're crazy.

Re:Great Day (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238174)

And have you ever tried to find a minister to perform a duck marriage? You say you want to make an honest duck of her and they look at you like you're crazy.

Weird guy: I want to marry this duck!
Minister: We don't marry ducks here!

Weird guy: I'll make a $10,000.00 donation to the church.
Minister: Why didn't you tell me the duck was a "born again" christian?

Re:Great Day (1)

Slicebo (221580) | more than 6 years ago | (#23239266)

Time to get DOWN!

Re:Great Day (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237004)

Hey, judge, wait a minute, I haven't finished popping the popcorn!

Somebody give that fat lady the sheet music, ok?

Re:Great Day (1)

daniorerio (1070048) | more than 6 years ago | (#23239678)

It's raining here, you insensitive clod!

Re:Great Day (1)

Walter Wart (181556) | more than 6 years ago | (#23240186)

Who says there's no pr0n on Slashdot?

Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defense (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23236746)

OS X is Unix, but Linux is not Unix! That does not make any sense!

Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237070)

BSD is Unix.

Linux is not BSD.

Q.E.D.

OSX != BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237708)

OSX is a Mach kernel with a BSD *personality*.

Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237314)

I thought OS X was only half Unix (an unholy chimera consisting of BSD parts fused to parts of Mach). Although suppose that it does use BSD basic commands such as ls and friends, so I suppose it could be argued that it's derived from Unix.

Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen (2, Informative)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238000)

Actually, OS X 10.5/x86 is UNIX, according to the Open Group, who owns the UNIX trademark. ;)

Re:Move over Chewbacca... her comes the OS X defen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238938)

But *BSD isn't? I think all that means is Apple was happy to pay for the certification whilst *BSD wasn't

Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236776)

Why? After having seen one decision after another AGAINST SCO, how anything resembling investment money still flowing to SCO? Are these investors so over-powered with greed that they are failing to use common sense? Why? Why? Why? Somebody with no common sense needs to explain this to me.

Sorry. (1)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236806)

but George H. W. Bush is on a speaking engagement today. Try back tomorrow.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236844)

"Somebody with no common sense needs to explain this to me."
That would be me, but I can't help you either.
Fees will be generated.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (2, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236904)

Maybe it's like those folks who fall for the Nigerian schemes. Once you're in you can either admit that you've been scammed and have lost thousands of dollars or you can ignore all of the blaring warning signs, press on, and construct an elaborate fantasy world to live in where friendly Nigerian e-mailers will be shipping you your pile of cash any day now. The investors, instead of cutting their losses and moving on, are just hoping against hope that some magical evidence fairy will visit SCO overnight, leave proof positive that Linux really is owned by SCO, and all of their sunk money wasn't wasted.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236994)

Okay, so it is like Scientology. Got it.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

falsified (638041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237030)

Maybe. But I still think something fishy is going on here. Investors (good and bad ones) lose money on what turn out to be bad investments all the time - they don't sulk like the amateurs who fall for spam schemes. And really, at the initial onset I could see it making sense to buy some SCO stock. Most major corporations pay money to make lawsuits like this just go away. Even if there's only a 10% shot at it, the rise on stock afterwards may be worth it. Now it's just weird. I hate bashing Microsoft just for the sake of doing it, but are they, or is someone else, trying to work something behind the scenes?

They forgot about IBM's legal history and how they particularly enjoy crushing people who mess with them.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237228)

Because quite often hedge fund managers don't care whether each individual investment will make money. If I loan money to SCO I can tell my investors the funds is now grown by the inflated value on paper that SCO agreed to and the bigger numbers brings more investors and hopefully by the time SCO tanks I'll have made the money back elsewhere.

Short sighted? Yep. Evil conspiracy? Not so much.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23236928)

Ahem, what [yahoo.com] money [yahoo.com] ? All the trades this year seem to be $50,000 and they're going both directions.

Maybe it is something as simple as assets being sold off, generating income for the defunct company? I don't know anything about trading in bankrupt companies, but this was the first idea that I thought of. The other possibility that crossed my mind is shady stock market tricks being played.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237960)

Ahem, what [yahoo.com] money [yahoo.com] ? All the trades this year seem to be $50,000 and they're going both directions.

Maybe it is something as simple as assets being sold off, generating income for the defunct company? I don't know anything about trading in bankrupt companies, but this was the first idea that I thought of. The other possibility that crossed my mind is shady stock market tricks being played.
Maybe it's a slightly more sophisticated pump-and-dump?

If I buy at .10 and sell at .13 (which someone did a few days ago) I make 30% in three hours.... Not a bad return, and someone has been doing that every since the first of the year....

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238318)

Yeah but the volumes are tiiiiiiny and you just as easily risk buying at .10 and selling at .08, losing 20% in 3 hours. You can play the penny stock game, but I wouldn't bet more than a few thousand at a time. You'd probably have similar returns playing red or black streaks at the roulette tables in Vegas.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (3, Insightful)

qortra (591818) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236944)

how anything resembling investment money still flowing
If it doesn't look like investment money, then perhaps it isn't. There are a lot of non-investment related reasons that one might want to give money to SCO. Pro-lawyer, pro-Microsoft, pro-time-wasting, and pro-evil groups are probably all interested in seeing SCO continue its lawsuits. I'm not necessarily saying that this is the case here, but it couldn't hurt to check out Stephen Norris Capital Partners: maybe they are infusing SCO with money on behalf of some [evil] third party.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (3, Funny)

archeopterix (594938) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237252)

Pro-lawyer, pro-Microsoft, pro-time-wasting, and pro-evil groups
Somebody please call the department of redundancy department!

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238624)

"Somebody please call the department of redundancy department!"

I've always wondered why no geek has made this into a recursive joke .....

Department of Redundancy Department's Redundancy Division, Department of Redundancy Department.

Okay, that might be stretching it too far. Never Mind

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23239290)

but it couldn't hurt to check out Stephen Norris Capital Partners:

Do you mean:

  • check out Stephen Norris & Company Capital Partners, L.P., or
  • check out Stephen Norris Capital Partners, LLC (SNCP), or
  • check out GMG Capital Partners, or
  • check out Staisil Norris Partners, or
  • check out Stephen L. Norris Foundation, or
  • check out 76 & Madison, or
  • check out American Institutional Partners, or
  • check out ICGStocklending, or
... profit for someone?

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (5, Insightful)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237010)

Your confusion is easily explained by stepping back and inspecting your premise. That premise is that people pour money into SCO with the expectation of profit through sales and licensing. In that context there is no sense in pouring more money into them.

Assuming that those investors are not total nitwits, we must therefore look for another premise. I propose this one: "people pour money into SCO with the expectation of profit through delay of Linux take up". You see, that makes sense: SCO casts a shadow of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt over all things Linux (and by extension, over all things Open Source). That shadow is highly beneficial to some parties, since Linux represents a serious threat to their business model.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

ittybad (896498) | more than 6 years ago | (#23239906)

As a former investment advisor, there are many reasons why someone would invest in a failing company or a company that is near-death. The chief reason is to have a loss; it favorably affects your tax situation and can offset gains.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

doodlebumm (915920) | more than 6 years ago | (#23240404)

I've NEVER understood that. Why throw money down the toilet just to reduce the amount of taxes you pay on your income? If I have $100 that I invest for a loss, and loose it all, isn't that worse that paying $90 in taxes on the $100 and keeping $10?

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237152)

After having seen one decision after another AGAINST SCO, how anything resembling investment money still flowing to SCO

What a lot of people don't understand is the amount of wealth the wealthy now have. Seriously, it is sickening how rich the rich have become.

$10 million, $100 million, is nothing to some of the people with a vested interest in eliminating Linux.

There is no ROI from SCO's software, but the on-going court battle drains money from Novell, BM, and still creates fear.

While no one seriously thinks that SCO has a valid case, Microsoft can point to the on-going very expensive litigation as an example of what will happen if a company dares go against Microsoft and support Linux.

Microsoft's billions of dollars are an evil corruptive force, every penny spent on a Microsoft product funds the sort of crap we've seen over and over and over again with the ISO, SCO, and I guess the OLPC, and so on.

Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237400)

I had it explained to me by a VC.
It's not an individual's sole investment when they put money into the SCO. Instead they invest a little. They can afford to invest a small amount because the potential return is so high.

If I invest $1M and spread it out over 100's of companies, I can afford to drop $1k on SCO because the potential return is 100:1 or greater. With enough investors dropping these small speculation investments in, the SCO can continue to get funding.

No One Is Giving Them Money (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238350)

No one has invested in them in years. They have floated several "rescue" schemes since they filed fo Ch. 11 bankruptcy last year but all have fallen through at the last minute.

Spectacular error (4, Funny)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236782)

I doubt I have ever seen the random /. quote ever be more appropriate:
"If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error."

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Re:Spectacular error (1)

ashmon (592459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23240358)

Heh. My random quote came up thusly:

Would you people stop playing these stupid games?!?!?!!!!

Dont forget ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23236802)

... to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking tea-baggers [twofo.co.uk] !

Re:Dont forget ... (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236832)

Is there a "-1, Get a new troll-bot" mod?

Re:Dont forget ... TROJAN TROLL (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237136)

GOD DAMN IT! Look, mods, when someone posts a link to a fucking virus "offtopic" is NOT sufficiant. The object or moderation isn't just to make the comment invisible and take away karma. It's to let the rest of us know WHY it's a bad post.

Jesus, as bad as the comment was, the moderation was just as bad.

Stop whining. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23239522)

Do you perhaps believe that a virus is ON topic?

McBride and Yarro to do the perp walk? (4, Interesting)

the saltydog (450856) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236862)

That's what *I'm* waiting for.

They called me a criminal for using Linux.

I'm calling them criminals for running an extortion/stock pump and dump/fraud scheme.

They were wrong. I'm not. When will the SEC finally put these all hat, no cattle rustlers behind bars?

Oh, and by the way, if you had the UNIX copyrights, why did you insist on asking Novell for them - repeatedly?

Bunch of lying scumbag bastard pricks - every single supporter of this fiaSCO. (Yes, that includes you, too, Rudy de Haas. Fucking asshat.)

Re:McBride and Yarro to do the perp walk? (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237226)

Just remember one key phrase: litigation risk. This is the risk that you run, given that all the facts are on your side, that you'll lose in court for no predictable reason. Most lawyers like to ballpark this number around 10-20%.

Don't forget this is Utah we're talking about... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237460)

...and despite the fact that this is going on in a federal court, the fact that it's happening in Utah means that the side that wins will be the one that has the greatest potential for circulating the largest amount of dollars within the state's economy as a result of the trial's outcome. And today, that party would be Novell.

Re:McBride and Yarro to do the perp walk? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237634)

Yes, that includes you, too, Rudy de Haas
For those who may not know, Rudy De Haas is the real name of "Paul Murphy", who has written quite a few heavily-anti-Linux biased articles [zdnet.com] regarding this whole fiaSCO. Since he has written some pro-Linux articles as well (but never about the SCO cases), one has to seriously wonder whether or not Mr. de Haas is a paid schill.

 

SCO lives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23236868)

Summon the Kracken!

And there was much rejoicing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23236872)

Yaaaay.

What trick, you ask? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236890)

Digging up Johnny Cochran might do it.

Johnny Cochran? (1)

psvm (223960) | more than 6 years ago | (#23239894)

Digging up Johnny Cochran might do it.
What, zombie lawyers? There's a scary thought for you.
"Pursuant to Article iii, subsection 9a, we hereby order a complete seizure of all cranial assets to be delivered forthwith"

Fuck them both (0, Flamebait)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23236980)

Fuck SCO for being SCO. Fuck Novell for their bullshit Microsoft patent deals.

Re:Fuck them both (1)

jimmypw (895344) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237410)

you tell them big man! Seriously though SCO can fuck off we all know unix is owned by the starbucks corporation.

Re:Fuck them both (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237876)

That'd be great actually; they could give away promotional Unix licenses with the purchase of a large cup of coffee.

Re:Fuck them both (1)

Digi-John (692918) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238930)

Good God man, the prices for Unix licenses would be EXTORTIONATE! I have to pay for a large Starbucks coffee before I can get a Unix license? Jesus, I'll be broke soon.

The SCO Story Was Much More Fun... (2)

heavygravity (160241) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237022)

The SCO story was much more fun back when we still didn't know how it would end up.

Re:The SCO Story Was Much More Fun... (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237108)

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have used the spoiler tags.

I won't mention the whole Microsoft/Yahoo thing, then.

We still don't know exactly how it will end up (1)

roystgnr (4015) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237672)

And no, "corporate shell gets disassembled by cheated creditors while the criminals in charge of it get away" is not a happy ending. That's an improvement over the ridiculous threats they were making to scare off Linux interest and lure in Microsoft "investment" money, but a real happy ending for the SCO scammers would involve more pitchforks and fire.

Come on already! (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237042)

This is like having the scene from Cliff Hanger protracted out for 5 hours on screen! Why doesn't SCO just realize there is no hope for rescue and let go already?!? Half of the battle is knowing when you have been beat, walking away and licking your wounds to come back another day...or not.

What trick they will pull this time... (3, Funny)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237094)

"Ladies and Gentleman of the supposed court, I know my clients lawsuit has been rendered ashes by you fine people; but you see here this is Chewbacca..."

Re:What trick they will pull this time... (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238292)

"Ladies and Gentleman of the supposed court, I know my clients lawsuit has been rendered ashes by you fine people; but you see here this is Chewbacca..."
"Damn, Johnny Cochran is dead. Now what will we do?"
-- Darl McBride

Re:What trick they will pull this time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238738)

"I can loan you....
the Ghost of Johnny Cochran!"
-- Carlos Mencia

This was all part of the plan from the beginning.. (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237216)

This gives SCO executives a day to get the computers and office furniture out of the building before the bank shows up to reposess everything! On top of which, even while they abscond with possibly hundreds of dollars worth of inventory, they get to claim a multi-million dollar tax loss on their income taxes this year.

Yes, they're bastards. Anybody still convinced that the executroids at SCO actually lost anything - and don't say "their self-respect", because obviously . . .

SCO should be dead by now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237368)

SCO is still there? Didn't the judge pull out a revolver at the last hearing and shoot their office holders and lawyers all dead? I'm pretty sure he did. I can even remember everyone clapping.

Stipulation is normal (1)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237488)

Stipulations happen in every trial. Nothing out of the ordinary there. And if you read it, all it concerns is procedural aspects of the trial.

Wish I Could Have Shorted SCO (1)

Stringer Bell (989985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237660)

Back when I first heard that SCO was taking on IBM claiming IP and patent infringement and what-have-you, I knew for certain they'd just cut their own throat (assuming the didn't change tack at some point - and they haven't).

I would have loved to short their stock then, but alas I was in grad school and didn't have the cash available. Too bad. Based on a rough guess of when that was, and todays quote of $0.18 per share for SCOX, I'd have made about ten bucks a share.

Re:Wish I Could Have Shorted SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23239986)

Dont feel too bad. Even if you had the cash it was almost impossible to find a broker who had shares to lend as
every geek in the country tried to short it. Lots of people couldn't get a short position at the time. Lots that did
had it closed prematurely when the owner the of the stock sold it and the short had to return the shares.

SCO is the Defendent? (2, Informative)

qazwart (261667) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237662)

Interesting is in this trial SCO is the defendant and Novell is the claimant. I thought it was SCO who is suing everyone.

It looks like via the stipulation and the way the trial is organized that SCO expects to lose. It appears that Novell simply wants to assert its claim to UnixWare and SCO is ready to close up shop. That's why the stipulation and the short trial and the fact that SCO isn't going to call up witnesses.

Re:SCO is the Defendent? (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237748)

Thats because SCO have no claims left and are only there to answer Novells counterclaims.

Re:SCO is the Defendent? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237814)

All of SCO's claims were eliminated pre-trial via findings of fact and stuff. Therefore, all this trial consists of is Novell's counter-claims.

Re:SCO is the Defendent? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238328)

Interesting is in this trial SCO is the defendant and Novell is the claimant. I thought it was SCO who is suing everyone.
Afaict it is quite normal to countersue when you get sued. Especially when the organisation suing you is a company that likes to lie about you in public.

Re:SCO is the Defendent? (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | more than 6 years ago | (#23239286)

It's not so much that SCO had a choice here.

You're right, SCO was suing everyone. But In SCO v Novell, ALL of SCOs claims were dismissed by summary judgement. All that's left for trial are Novells counterclaims. Thus, SCO = defendant.

Wiser heads than mine claim to be puzzled by the lack of witnesses on SCO's side (to say "it was really all about UNIXWARE"), so I hesitate to speculate on SCO's plans.

Slashd0t Sux0rz (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23237668)

_0_ \''\ '=o=' .|!| .| | best avatar ever [goatse.ch]

Re:Slashd0t Sux0rz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238240)

Worst avatar ever [youtube.com]

Re:Slashd0t Sux0rz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23238764)

You fail, because you think "Preview" is for losers.

The Judge already ruled (4, Informative)

IronClad (114176) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237766)

The summary is a little misleading. The judge *already* ruled that SCO Group does not own much of anything, including the UNIX SYSV copyrights, in a summary judgment motion last year.

The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product. Given the non-dizzying speed at which SCO's products have been improved and maintained, Novell argues that the vast majority of those millions was due to Novell.

In the mean time it has been entertaining to read the SCO Group's arguments for why they should keep the money to which they have no right, or at least how they should not be required to turn the swag over to Novell. As if our opinion of them could have previously been lower.

Re:The Judge already ruled (1)

mellonhead (137423) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238100)

Mod this up, this is exactly what happened (August 2007).

Re:The Judge already ruled (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238640)

The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product.

Actually, SCO has the right to license Unix on behalf of Novell; however, they have to give 100% of all revenue to Novell as per their agreement. Novell remits 5% to SCO for their trouble. SCO does not have the right to create new types of licenses (which it appeared to do here) with Unix.

Re:The Judge already ruled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23240268)

SCO doesn't have the right to do "buyout" deals, e.g. the buyout deal SUN (claimed they) needed so they could open-source Solaris.

Re:The Judge already ruled (1)

njcoder (657816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238956)

he biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product. Given the non-dizzying speed at which SCO's products have been improved and maintained, Novell argues that the vast majority of those millions was due to Novell.


Novell made an agreement where SCO would be the licensing agent for SYSV Unix. For their services, SCO would get 5% of the licensing fees. Novell is claiming that SCO should have sent 100% of the fees to Novell and Novell would send back 5%. SCO did not send any of the money to Novell according to Novell's claim.


What would be interesting to see if after all this, will SCO sue Novell over the initial licensing deal because Novell didn't give SCO the necessary authority to properly defend licensing claims?

Post SCO? (1)

spungo (729241) | more than 6 years ago | (#23237910)

Anyone got any ideas what's gonna happen when SCO are nothing but a bad smell? Are we gonna see other unices opened up? I'd like to have Irix on laptop... just 'cos I can (er... if I can, that is).

Kimball Already Ruled That SCO Doesn't Own SysV (2, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238238)

> With any luck, we will soon have an official ruling that SCO does not own much of
> anything...

Kimball ruled that SCO does not own the SysV copyrights last year. This trial is about how much of Novell's money SCO pocketed when they sold SysV licenses to Sun and Microsoft without Novell's permission. The case will then go back to the bankruptcy court where Judge Gross will decide what to do about it. Note that this trial is about how much of Novell's money SCO took, not whether or not they did so. The latter has already been decided.

If Kimball awards more than a small fraction of the $37M maximum (likely) it is hard to see how SCO can avoid Ch. 7 liquidation.

Re:Kimball Already Ruled That SCO Doesn't Own SysV (1)

kilgortrout (674919) | more than 6 years ago | (#23239602)

You are exactly right. I'd just like to add that the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay thus allowing the Novell case to go forward for the sole purpose of liquidating Novell's claim. All other issues regarding Novell's claim have been reserved by the bankruptcy court. In particular, the issue of whether SCO held the licensing revenue in trust for Novell is going to be solely determined by the bankruptcy court. If Novell loses the trust argument, they'll just be another general unsecured creditor and will likely receive only pennies on the dollar for their claim against SCO.

So, Prediction time (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23238372)

Does SCO ask to convert to Chapter 7 next Monday or Not?

My guess is that they will, because converting to Chapter 7 following the ruling against them shows "good faith" and keeps Darl and Co. out of jail.

they'll pull a Nacchio.. claim spies and lies. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 6 years ago | (#23240420)

"oh, gee, your Honor, but we can't possibly tell you how important this is, because the details are covered in national security directives. you'll just have to trust us."

at which point the judge should pull out a gun and shoot 'em.

Live-blogging? (1)

Nick Barnes (11927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23240470)

Is anyone live-blogging the trial?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?