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 Owes Novell $2.5 Million

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the please-die-already dept.

The Courts 174

CrkHead writes "Groklaw has posted Judge Kimball's ruling on SCO v Novell. For those that have been following this saga, we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall. For those new to this story, it started with SCO suing Novell and having all its motions decided in summary judgement and went to trial only on Novell's counter claims. Cheers to PJ for keeping us informed!"

cancel ×

174 comments

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

Strange (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226203)

The judge said something like "Pay the 2.5 million dollar fee you c*** ....."

Re:Strange (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226249)

...smoking teabaggers?

Re:Strange (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226495)

Hey PJ, how about a BJ?

Not important (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226217)

The question is: Will Novell be able to collect?

Re:Not important (2, Interesting)

Tesen (858022) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228701)

So what happens to those in SCO that initiated this case in the first place? If they are not able to appeal nor pay up on what has been ordered, what happens to Darl and co? Claims were made to be found baseless, do they get off free of charge or are there proceedings that can be brought against the architect's of this situation?

Tes

Money comes from where? (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226237)

Aren't they already bankrupt? So this money will come from where? Damn limited liability.Is there any way they can they go after the shareholders in any meaningful way once the company folds?

Re:Money comes from where? (4, Funny)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226315)

technically, yes. All they need though is enough money to appeal, the payment will probably be stayed during the appeal. So, it isn't over yet by the looks of it. Rumours of SCO's demise have been greatly exaggerated to date, they won't be dead until they're staked through the corporate heart with a wooden stick or shot with some silver bullet. See your nearest vampire/zombie movie theater for more information about this procedure...

Re:Money comes from where? (3, Funny)

kazade84 (1078337) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226423)

See your nearest vampire/zombie movie theater for more information about this procedure...

Is that a movie theater run by vampires and zombies, or a theater run for vampire and zombie patrons? ;)

Re:Money comes from where? (2, Funny)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226501)

Good call, I'll leave the ambiguity unresolved, since it is of no significance whatsoever and therefore can safely be made an issue of suspense.

apologies to Douglas Adams :)

Re:Money comes from where? (3, Funny)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227231)

apologies to Douglas Adams :)

Unless he's a vampire/zombie I doubt he'll be complaining.

Re:Money comes from where? (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228741)

hehe, that'd be even odds (pun definitely not intended ;) )...

Re:Money comes from where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227727)

"they won't be dead until they're staked through the corporate heart with a wooden stick [and] shot with some silver bullet."

There, fixed it for ya.

Appeal Bond (2, Informative)

OmniGeek (72743) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228029)

I believe they are required to deposit an appeal bond in the amount of the judgment before they are allowed to appeal. They may still be able to manage that, but it's most likely going to be a matter for the bankruptcy judge...

Re:Money comes from where? (1)

Ziest (143204) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228065)

A stake of white oak through the heart, cut off the head, sliver cross on the chest, sprinkle with holy water and expose to direct sunlight. THAT should do the trick.

Re:Money comes from where? (2, Informative)

Tim99 (984437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228661)

A stake of white oak through the heart, cut off the head, sliver cross on the chest, sprinkle with holy water and expose to direct sunlight. THAT should do the trick.

Yes then some fool injures themself, and lets blood run onto the ashes, and the evil is resurrected.

Re:Money comes from where? (1)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226475)

Hpoefully they'll auction off freeze-dried and cased in resin pieces of Darl McBride to pay the debt...

Re:Money comes from where? (5, Funny)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227205)

"Oh, they've encased him in carbonite!"

Actually, a carbonite encased Darl might not look too bad hanging on a wall in Novell's throne room . . .

Re:Money comes from where? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227229)

I'd pay five strips of gold-pressed latinum for one of those!

Darl McBride gets a new job... (2, Funny)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226521)

... and Ron Hovsepian gets his lawn mowed twice a week.

Re:Money comes from where? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226971)

Theoretically, SCO does have a couple of million left, and SCO should have to pay Novell. Since this is not a judgement of debt owed, but of conversion of Novell's money, Novell should be in front of the line and get their money before the others split up the remaining. Delaware jurisdiction makes this less likely, though.
It may be possible to go after the company executives, but not the stockholders, who have lost their entire investment already, anyway.

Re:Money comes from where? (3, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227251)

So this money will come from where? Damn limited liability.

Actually various inside sources seem to indicate that Darl McBride will end up being sentenced to serve as Jerry Seinfeld's butler.

Re:Money comes from where? (3, Informative)

u38cg (607297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228085)

Erm, no. That's the whole point of being a public limited liability company: in exchange for capping your liability to what you invested, you have to open your company up to a certain level of scrutiny.

let's hope (4, Funny)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226239)

that they can't pay in SCO stock :) (or whatever moniker they go by now, pink slips or something to that effect).

licenses (5, Funny)

edalytical (671270) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226355)

They will obviously pay in Linux CPU licenses. I hear they're worth $699.

Re:licenses (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226471)

Wasn't it $666?

Re:licenses (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226753)

You sir are probably correct. But the real question is who gave Darl McBride mod points? Both the GP poster and I were modded "Overrated". WTF?

Re:licenses (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227659)

Both the GP poster and I were modded "Overrated". WTF?

And what sucks even more is that the down-moderation COUNTS but the up-moderation as funny doesn't, so you can be thoroughly butt-fucked over by the moderators all on one posting.

Re:licenses (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227869)

Mod parent down!

Re:licenses (1)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227277)

Wasn't it $666?

An Apple I.

just my 66 cents worth.

Re:licenses (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228031)

Yes I knew that.

But shouldn't that be your 66.6 cents worth?

Re:licenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226747)

That's roughly 42 EUR right now, right?

Re:licenses (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226813)

Sure, that is, if you use metric conversion and not imperial conversion. Imperial conversion is pretty easy, you take the dollar amount you have and then invade the country you want to convert your money to, subtract the head of state, add a puppet government and then multiply by the compound interest they owe for the weapon system you financed them +/- any collateral damage and/or hush money.

only 2.5 Meeeeeeellion dollars??????? (2, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227025)

This is like out of Austin Power. Was the judge cryogentically frozen for the last 30 years?

2.5 million dollars sounds awfully low.

I think the judge may have been saysing well the rights belong to Novell and to make this contractually clear I'm going to charge you a deminimus fine.

hmmm, (4, Informative)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226245)

So Novell get $2.5m instead of $20m, does this mean SCO may survive this?

"Importantly, the court ruled that Novell has no right to any royalties from UnixWare or OpenServer sales by SCO, which is where the bulk of SCO's revenue is earned," SCO said in the statement. "This is also an important step forward in the capitalization and reorganization plan for SCO that will allow us to emerge from Chapter 11. We continue to disagree with the premise of this trial and believe that Novell is not owed anything, but that they have interfered with SCO's UNIX rights."

From their statement they seem relatively upbeat on what must of been a bad day for them.

It hints that Novell owns the SVRX code that SCO sold to MS - does this mean that MS will now sue?

Interesting times...

Re:hmmm, (3, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226297)

oh, they'll appeal for sure. FUD forever. The really nasty thing is that this ruling sends entirely the wrong message to other SCO-like scum out there. They should have been hung and quartered, instead they only got slapped around a couple of times. The players all made money (except for the parties sued of course).

Re:hmmm, (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226467)

It hints that Novell owns the SVRX code that SCO sold to MS - does this mean that MS will now sue?

Who? Microsoft? Sue SCO? Microsoft helped to orchestrate this whole fiaSCO. Not likely, no.

Re:hmmm, (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226763)

I can think of 2 good reasons for Microsoft to sue, if they are convinced that SCO's usefulness as an anti-Linux FUD machine is over.

Firstly if SCO has any asset value left, and Microsoft can secure a percentage of the pickings from the corpse then it's not just cash for them, it's also cash that won't be going to Novell & IBM.

Secondly 'Darl tricked us into orchestrating this whole fiaSCO, and we have a judge's verdict proving it' is much better PR than 'hey shareholders, we just wasted $oodles on a doomed court case'

Re:hmmm, (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226557)

But Judge Kimball just said that the burden of proof that the UnixWare or OpenServer sales are also in fact SVR4 lies with Novell, and until now Novell didn't prove so. This US$ 2.5 mio are just those royalties on sales that are undisputedly SVR4 sales. It still leaves Novell with the possibility to appeal where they actually prove that those sales aren't what SCOG claims them to be.

Re:hmmm, (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226943)

It still leaves Novell with the possibility to appeal where they actually prove that those sales aren't what SCOG claims them to be.

Those other sales, that is.

Re:hmmm, (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24228111)

You can't introduce new facts in an appeal. An appeal challenges incorrect procedure and re-evaluates the already-established facts of the case.

Re:hmmm, (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226647)

"It hints that Novell owns the SVRX code that SCO sold to MS - does this mean that MS will now sue?"

It means that MS will now say they own the rights to use the SVRX code, as they made a deal with Novell.

Novell *does* own the code... (4, Informative)

rkhalloran (136467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226751)

The ruling that sent the SCOundrels into bankruptcy court last year confirmed that the deal Caldera inherited from Santa Cruz Operation did *NOT* transfer copyrights from Novell, just gave rights to develop new code from it (i.e. Unixware) and act as Novell's collection agent on existing licenses. The current management (using the term *VERY* loosely), seeing their x86-UNIX business sinking, sued their former development partner, IBM, assuming they'd get a quick payoff to shut up and go away. Big surprise when IBM unleashed their lawyers right back at them. The present fiaSCO has ensued, only getting better when they tried to sue Novell for actually claiming the copyrights SCO was trying to use, which led to today's ruling.

SCOX DELENDA EST!!

Re:hmmm, (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227209)

Wait there's more. The 2.5 million did not include attorney's fees or interest. I would expect Novell to ask for attorney's fees for this colossal waste of their time. Also it doesn't hint that Novell owns Unix rights; Judge Kimball already ruled that they own the rights otherwise he would not have opportunity to award money.

Cheers to who? (-1, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226251)

Cheers to PJ for keeping us informed

Don't you mean Cheers to IBM for keeping us informed?

Re:Cheers to who? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226333)

Oh for chrissake, why don't you just start trolling twitter's posts instead?

SCO reminds me of (5, Funny)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226255)

that 17 year old girl on Maury Povich's horrible show that goes through 20 different men trying to find the father of her kid. Give it up already!

Re:SCO reminds me of (1)

Tragedy4u (690579) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226363)

And all 20 guys test negative "You are NOT the father!" the whole audience is fighting to not shout "SLUT!" and the mom is a ball of tears after each negative announcement realizing, "Yes indeed, I am a slut." and the children suffer. THATS comedy, THATS SCO!

Re:SCO reminds me of (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226547)

Bill Gates as Darth Vader: SCO! *I* am your father!

Re:SCO reminds me of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227323)

Mmmmmmisquote!
http://www.flixster.com/articles/luke-i-am-your-father-movie-misquotes

Re:SCO reminds me of (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227867)

SCO rhymes with 'no'. And the fact that it's Bill Gates as Darth Vader and not actually Darth Vader should give you an idea that this might not be a direct quote. Unless perhaps in your own language, SCO is pronounced 'Luke!'

Obligatory (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226259)

<Nelson>Ha-Ha!</Nelson>

The end? I doubt it. (5, Insightful)

AmIAnAi (975049) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226267)

we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall

Sadly, I think not. More likely, SCO will just find another deck of cards and carry on playing for some time.

Re:The end? I doubt it. (3, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226451)

Sadly, I think not. More likely, SCO will just find another deck of cards and carry on playing for some time.

Nah. They still have to face the music with IBM. Same judge, too.

Re:The end? I doubt it. (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226487)

Wow, now they're playing cards and next they're playing Guitar Hero. Selling Unix licenses sure sounds fun!

This isnt any victory. (5, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226275)

The whole thing has been a farse from start to end. That SCO has been allowed to continue this long without any evidence to back their claims up are insane. At the very least they should have been compelled to show some tangible evidence before the whole fishing expedition begun. The real stink begun when they could go on even after the extremely deep discoveries couldnt show any evidence at all that any code whatsoever came from SCO, not even "their own" code.

Something is just fishy about how the court system has handled all this.

Re:This isnt any victory. (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226533)

Not at all. IANAL, but from personal experience with involvement in such a legal dispute, I wouldn't say that discovery was anymore deep than normal. The only difference is, SCO dragged their feet and dragged their feet as much as possible. But in so much as what was asked for? Not really unusual at all. The way Judge Kimball and his magistrate handled it? Nothing unusual there, either. If anything, Kimball has been one of the most fair judges I've ever seen.

You can't just stop a court trial for no reason. The judge can't just throw the whole thing out. There are rules that have to be followed and Kimball did, in essence, throw out the vast majority of SCO's claims.

In fact, most of what's left is IBM's counterclaims. That's when the hammer will really fall.

Re:This isnt any victory. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227359)

SCO has used every trick it could to delay both the trial and discovery. Unfortunately they have been well within their rights. I would suspect that the judges in this case know this but are just being cautious. They don't want to give SCO any valid excuse to overturn them on appeal.

After this lengthy ordeal, Kimball ruled that Novell owned the rights and Wells threw out most of SCO's claims against IBM for lack of evidence. There has been progress made but it's been slow. The of course, SCO further delayed proceedings by pulling the bankruptcy tactic.

For the legally knowledgable among us... (1)

starseeker (141897) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226295)

does this judgment break through the bankruptcy protections?

Not per se (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226573)

What the judgment does is to set the amount of money SCO owes to Novell. That information goes into the bankruptcy.

An important detail is that the money SCO owes Novell was never SCO's. SCO was handling the money as an agent. It was always Novell's money. Judge Kimball ruled that SCO had breached its fiduciary duty and had unjustly enriched itself. If I understand correctly, that means Novell gets its money and then the other creditors get to fight over what's left.

The other thing that many have pointed out is that Novell will probably be awarded their lawyer fees. That amount will far eclipse the money Kimball has ruled on so far.

Priorities on disbursment.... (4, Interesting)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226871)

There are a bunch of things that happen now:
  1. SCO has to restate earnings for the Quarter they claimed the SUN contract.
  2. Executives have to give back bonuses adjusted for the restated earnings.
  3. SCO has to fork over the 2.5M + Interest from it's reserves - outside the protection of the bankruptcy court.
  4. If Novell wins 'Legal Fees', then Novell petitions the court to add themselves as a creditor for that amount - estimates have ranged in the 20M+ range for the cost of this litigation.

This is independent of any legal action that the SEC or the local AG may decide to take.

Re:Priorities on disbursment.... (1)

AlecC (512609) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227059)

Under UK law (and I realise that this is a US case), the claim for legal fees could be pursued back to SCO's backers. There is a concept of "constructive support". If A gives B a pile of money to legally harass C, and the court finds that B's claim is substantially without value (which seems to be the case here) and awards costs against B to C, then C can chase A for those costs if B cannot pay. There is an obvious reason for this: you should not be able use the law as weapon against others with a fall-guy in the middle to protect you from the consequences. It seems to me that US law should have some equivalent provision, which would allow Novell to go against SCO's financiers for those legal costs.

Re:Not per se (1)

TropicalCoder (898500) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226955)

More specifically, the judge found SCO guilty of Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, and Unjust Enrichment.

Section 8.1 of the 2003 Sun Agreement lifts the confidentiality provisions with respect to 30 versions of SVRX technology granted to Sun under its 1994 Buy-out Agreement with Novell, specifically stating that it "amends and restates" Sun's 1994 SVRX buy-out agreement with Novell. SCO had no authority to enter such an agreement.

Section B of Amendment No. 2 to the APA provides that before entering into any potential transaction with an SVRX licensee which "concerns" a buy-out of any such licensee's royalty obligations, SCO must obtain Novell's consent. This provision requires either party who even "become[s] aware of any such potential transaction" to immediately notify the other in writing. The provision further requires that any negotiations with the licensee be attended by both parties, and that both parties consent to any such transaction. There are no exceptions to this provision. SCO had an obligation to keep Novell apprised of the facts concerning SVRX Licenses and failed to do so. Novell repeatedly demanded audits and accounting of the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements.

The Court declared that SCO was without authority to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement under Amendment 2, Section B, of the APA. The Court concluded that SCO breached its fiduciary duties to Novell by failing to notify Novell and account for and remit the revenue it received from Sun as a result of modifying the confidentiality provisions of Sun's SVRX buy-out agreement with Novell. The Court concluded that SCO was unjustly enriched by retaining the revenues Sun agreed to pay to relax and amend the confidentiality provisions of the 1994 Agreement and Novell is entitled to restitution. The Court concluded that SCO wrongfully exercised dominion Novell's personal property, and that SCO's failure to pass through to Novell the SVRX Royalties due under the Sun Agreement was a wrongful act inconsistent with Novell's rights. The Court concludes that Novell has established SCO's conversion of the revenues due under the 2003 Sun Agreement.

This looks pretty serious to me. Could criminal charges be brought to bare on the the officers responsible for this?

Re:Not per se (2, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227041)

What it amounts to is a fancy way to describe theft. SCO stole money from Novell by not reporting it and turning it over. I would *love* to see SCO's management face civil and/or legal penalties directly for this but IANAL.

Re:Not per se (1)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228129)

It has been some time, since I sit in an English classroom, however I still remember some parts of the language. Doesn't "unjustly enriched itself" mean that they steal money from Novell???

Eureka! (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226303)

Greater proof of God's existence hath no man ever before presented!

Re:Eureka! (2, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226439)

But if God is all good and all powerful, why would he allow Jar Jar Binks to happen?

Re:Eureka! (2, Funny)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226549)

A thing cannot exist in a vacuum. Without the darkness, how would we know the light? Without evil, there could be no good. Define a thing not by what it is, but by what it is not.

Re:Eureka! (0, Offtopic)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226561)

But if God is all good and all powerful, why would he allow Jar Jar Binks to happen?

Because it distracted Lucas from his original, far more heinous idea?

Re:Eureka! (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227977)

Such as replacing all the blasters with walkie-talkies?

SCO=Crazy cat lady (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226325)

Had they any sense, they would've stopped their compulsive litigation when it became apparent they were no good at it. Obviously they are just incapable of seeing how stupid they appear.

Re:SCO=Crazy cat lady (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226831)

If you can't see a reason for something, the reason is most probably the money. Someone else must be making more $ for every some $ from SCO. IANAL and I don't care who or how much, but it sounds like the only reasonable explanation.

First SCO..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24226327)

now, let's cross our fingers against the RIAA.

By Bunnies (1)

superid (46543) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226357)

In a perfect world, someone, oh lets call them Angry Alien Productions [angryalien.com] would produce "SCO vs Everyone, in 30 seconds By Bunnies"

Equel to (1)

A.Chwunbee (838021) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226365)

That is being equal to 3576,5379113018597997138769670959 licenses.

For those new to this story?! (5, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226373)

For those new to this story

Welcome to slashdot! I advise you to leave now while you still can.

Re: For those new to this story?! (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226997)

Now you tell me.

Re: For those new to this story?! (2, Funny)

ciaran.mchale (1018214) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227575)

For those new to this story

Welcome to slashdot! I advise you to leave now while you still can.

That's stupid advice: it didn't even have a car analogy.

Re: For those new to this story?! (1)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228281)

For those new to this story

Welcome to slashdot! I advise you to leave now while you still can.

That's stupid advice: it didn't even have a car analogy.

Let's say you had a car and were just welcomed to Slashdot. You'd want to start the engine and leave now while you still can. :-)

lifetimes (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226385)

I remember reading the latest SCO headlines when I was in the college computer labs back in 2003. I thought, "It's amazing that this has gone on so long... surely it will end soon." Five years later, it seems like lifetimes ago. Now, I doubt that this will ever end.

Re:lifetimes (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228143)

Agree. I distinctly remember that SCO blew up about the same time I landed on /.

I well remember those halcyon days when people seriously suggested there could be a real risk to Linux from these clowns

Remember though, there are multiple lawsuits (4, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226403)

The first series of lawsuits by SCO are the ones that are to answer the question of whether linux, BSD or contain code from the real UNIX code (i.e. code originally created by AT&T)
The second set of lawsuits (mostly being fought between SCO and Novell) is to answer the question of who owns the UNIX copyrights, who has what rights to them and which of the deals done over the code are valid and which aren't as well as who owes who how much money

Re:Remember though, there are multiple lawsuits (1)

Exanon (1277926) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226653)

I liked your input, but I did create a shorter, simpler version:

The first series of lawsuits is to determine who owes who how much money.
The second series of lawsuits is to answer who owns who how much money.

Since companies suing companies is only about money, one can simplify the reasons like above.

Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... (5, Informative)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226539)

Nothing says says cheers to PJ like donating to help her keep the site running! Left side, your choice, Paypal or Amazon. Just sayin.....

Re:Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227163)

Nothing says says cheers to PJ like donating to help her keep the site running! Left side, your choice, Paypal or Amazon. Just sayin.....

That's all fine and well. However, personally I prefer to donate to sites or projects that provide an accounting for my funds. For example, if a very popular project or site has already pulled in far more money than it needs, my money would be better spent on a less popular but worthy project rather than just further enriching the owner of the popular one. But without an accounting I have no way of telling, and the donation pages of PJ's site show none. Just sayin...

Re:Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227189)

But PJ was wrong...

SCO won most rounds of any substance in Novell v SCO, and only lost on the issue of SUN's restatement of rights.

If you read Groklaw, then this was either a slam-dunk for Novell, or very close to one.

PJ's limits as just a paralegal rather than a fully qualified lawyer are now showing.

I'm now wondering about her coverage of the IBM cases.

Re:Nothing says says cheers to PJ like...... (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228021)

Since SCO and Novell both had real lawyers who thought they were on the winning side of these arguments, I don't think it's fair to judge PJ too harshly for only being partly right with limited information.

I thought she got money from IBM. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227953)

No?

Prepping for Fat Lady.... (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226575)

Tell her to start warming up. We're almost ready, but it's going to take a bit longer.

Somewhat Pythonesque, I Feel... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#24226611)

I like to think of the SCO/Novell debacle like this classic Monty Python sketch - with Michael Palin being SCO & John Cleese being Novell...

Fish Slapping Dance [youtube.com]

licensing fees (2, Funny)

Mr.Ned (79679) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227065)

Maybe SCO can just give them 3,576 licenses for the Linux kernel.

So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? (5, Interesting)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227255)

SCO got off easy... this time. But the next shoe to drop will be if Novell sues Sun over OpenSolaris and Sun invokes the indemnity clause in its agreement with SCO. Then SCO will be on the hook.

The current judgment of $2.5M is practically nominal in the big picture. A large investor could cover that and SCO would escape a death sentence. SCO, or some version of it, is likely to survive for another day.

This is likely bad news for OpenSolaris and Sun. Novell now has Sun over a barrel. Sun was able to open source Solaris because it thought it bought a license from SCO to have free-and-clear rights to the SysV parts in Solaris. According to the decision, in 1994 Novell & Sun agreed for a 20-year non-disclosure on release of UNIX source code. That runs out in 2014. SUN then amended this with SCO to remove the non-disclosure. The last sentence on page 20 of the decisions says, "Absent the removal of the 1994 Sun Agreement's Confidentiality restrictions, Sun would not have been licensed to publically release the OpenSolaris source code". And on page 36k "In the 2003 Sun Agreement, SCO renegotiated a contract and expanded Sun's rights to technology still owned by Novell". Later on the same page "The court thus concludes and declares that SCO was without authority to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement....".

Novell now has a HUGE stick to beat over Sun's head. OpenSolaris has basically been declared illegal.

If I remember correctly, Novell has declared that they are done suing over UNIX. So Sun might be off the hook. However, if Novell is not so gracious and sues Sun over OpenSolaris. Sun will loose and will seek for SCO to indemnify it. SCO won't have the money. Then SCO will finally die.

Re:So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? (2, Interesting)

tonytraductor (1284978) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227535)

I guess I'd better go DL opensolaris before it comes down, then...

The house of cards fell (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227681)

For those that have been following this saga, we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall.

Start? I thought the house of cards fell in early 2003. That's when the lawsuit dropped, and at that same moment most of the employees of SCO and about 75% of the world's clueless tech pundits mistook conjecture and cognitive dissonance for business wisdom and impending legal victory. The rest of us started laughing at this charade almost immediately. But then, we read the facts.

So what does Laura DiDio say? (2, Informative)

Mark_in_Brazil (537925) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227735)

What I really want to know at this point is what the oh-so-knowledgeable and unbiased expert analyst Laura DiDio has to say about this. After all, she had seen code snippets that made her come away thinking SCO really had a strong case. Later she said that "you'd have to be really crazy to try and sue IBM if you didn't have something."
Since she has also claimed "these people" (people involved with Linux) are "living in an alternative reality," I'm curious about Ms. DiDio's views on reality today.

Of course, I have to admit that Ms. DiDio, renowned IT expert with no IT or computer science training, does know something about "living in an alternative reality [go.com] " (Ms. DiDio's part comes at the top of the 2nd page).

Re:So what does Laura DiDio say? (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228235)

Yeah, at least Fake Steve himself, Dan Lyons, admitted that he was conned [forbes.com] . I don't recall reading a similar mea culpa from DiDo.

I really appreciated Lyons' article. I still think it was stupid to buy into SCO's claims in the first place: there was a little matter of an absence of evidence, and the company's excuses for not releasing clear proof of code pilfering were sadly flawed (The Linux people will just destroy the evidence by removing it!). But Lyons' admission of error made it possible for me to read Fake Steve again after he was outed, and enjoy it. Namaste, Forbes Man.

I get my information via Al Petrofsky. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227851)

" Cheers to PJ for keeping us informed!"

IMHO he is less biased. I can form my own opinion, I do not need one provided for me.

Give it all to SCO... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24228189)

... in the ass! oh yeah Novell! give it all to SCO in the butt! IN THE BUTT!! feel it SCO, IN. THE. BUTT!!

Sorry for this troll guys... I just had to do it :P

The damage calculation is atrocios (1)

l2718 (514756) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228479)

Judge Kimball probably gets the law right (IANAL) but his idea for calculating damages is strange. He says Sun paid SCO for 4 things: a "release", as well as a license to UnixWare, some drivers, and Unix (SVRX). He values the release at $1.5M since MS paid that amount for a similar release. He then values each of the three licenses at one third of the remaining payment each. At no point does he justify this methods of calculation, which are a major win for SCO:
  1. When contracts are negotiated separately, contract clauses are not commodity items: identically phrased legal releases can have different values to different entities. It is completely unclear to me why the "releases" should be worth the same to Sun and Microsoft. After all, the two companies are in different lines of business; their products have very different Unix component to them; and in any case they negotiated their "releases" separately. How much of the total $9M Sun paid SCO was for this "release" specifically depends on the details of the negotiations between Sun and SCO, not Microsoft and SCO.
  2. It is preposterous to argue that Sun would pay equally for the rights to UnixWare, to the drivers, and to Unix. After all, their main goal was to open-source Solaris — a Unix derivative. Sun have no products based on UnixWare, and probably already had their own drivers written for Solaris x86. Clearly what they really wanted was the ability to open-source their derivative of Unix, and that's what they paid for; SCO throwing in a few add-ons (probably to make this appear to be a UnixWare license so they wouldn't have to give the money to Novell) shouldn't change the allocation of funds. This is a common fallacy: "we know that this sum was divided among three bins; we don't know exactly how it was divided, so it must have been divided equally". If we had no information whatsoever, then this would be the case, but here there is clear information that this wasn't the case. And when the judge himself says that doubts must be resolved against SCO, to me this means that he should have presumed that all the money that Sun paid was for the Unix license.

As an aside, I'm surprised that Novell didn't ask Sun to testify in court about what they thought they paid for. I guess this may be due to potential conflict-of-interest (since Sun open-sourced Solaris based on a license SCO didn't have the authority to give them, they are now in trouble with Novell over this).

In the immortal words of Nelson (1)

atlep (36041) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228545)

HA-HA!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>