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!

Novell Wins vs. SCO

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-wait-a-minute dept.

Caldera 380

Aim Here writes "According to Novell's website, and the Salt Lake Tribune, the jury in the SCO v. Novell trial has returned a verdict: Novell owns the Unix copyrights. This also means that SCO's case against IBM must surely collapse too, and likely the now bankrupt SCO group itself. It's taken 7 years, but the US court system has eventually done the right thing ..." No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this.

cancel ×

380 comments

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

Seven years for eight hours work (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676692)

But at least that part is over. There's still a little cleaning up to do but this one could be over and done with finally this summer. If you like Groklaw, head over and give PJ a pat on the back for her long perseverence.

Congrats to Novell's legal team.

/SCO die,die,die!

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676834)

Fuck PJ. She's a publicity whore no better than Darl. Shameless publicity whore. She profited in a grand way from this too-doo. Point. Of. Fact.

And "who is PJ"? Just some Small Town Paralegal *that just happened to be interested in Linux*? - YEAH RIGHT. I got a bridge.

Reasonable people understand that PJ works for IBM. Reasonable people understand that there is no "PJ", that IBM spun up a screen name and went to town.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (3, Funny)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676858)

Darl? Is that you?

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676976)

You forgot the "I'll get modded down for this, but here goes..." line in your post.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (5, Informative)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677024)

Reasonable people understand that PJ works for IBM. Reasonable people understand that there is no "PJ", that IBM spun up a screen name and went to town.

Reasonable people understand that evidence is necessary to back up their spurious claims.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677158)

Reasonable people understand that evidence is necessary to back up their spurious claims.

I fail to see how this has relevance to the spurious claim presented.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (4, Funny)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677048)

"Fuck PJ."

Umm, I don't think she wants you, but it's probably okay to keep her in your maturbatory Rolodex if you want.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677058)

PJ did the FOSS community an extraordinary service. I suspect she also did IBM a great service. One thing is sure, whatever her motives, she's ten times the person a worthless little apologist like you is. Go away you piece of garbage.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677156)

Fuck Frosty Piss. He's a publicity whore no better than Darl. Shameless publicity whore with dirty knickers and a fragrant, sweaty crotch. He wanked in a grand way to this poo-poo. Head. Of. Penis.

And "who is Frosty Piss"? Just some unknown troll *that just happened to post to this story*? - YEAH RIGHT. I got a boner.

Reasonable people understand that Frosty Piss works for SCO. Reasonable people understand that there is no "Frosty Piss", that SCO farted out a screen name and went to a whorehouse where they knocked up the ugliest skank they could find. Nine months later, et voila! Frosty Piss.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677240)

Can you prove "PJ" exists? No? Than shut the fuck up.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (0, Flamebait)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677312)

Everyone knows you are an evil little (in all ways) boy. Keep posting so I can laugh so more - especially some vitriol, I'd like to put it up on my wall as an example of how small people can be. Or you know, you could try arguments, logic, and facts.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (3, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677340)

I can't prove that you exist.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677540)

You can't prove he doesn't exist either.

The question is...which version does the burden of proof make the default?

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677344)

Then I'll say that the entity we refer to as "PJ" did the Linux community a great service. Be she real or not :)

NOW go tell me to "shut the fuck up".

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677422)

Can you prove you aren't an SCO corporate whore? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677454)

Ah, the everpresent shill argument, first refuge of the intellectually lazy Slashdotter.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (2, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677594)

Which is exactly why the AC called Frosty Piss on his bullshit, and why I was backing him up. Get it? You just argued against Frosty's original argument. He called PJ a shill.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677304)

So... "reasonable people" are either trolls or bat-shit crazy?

Why does PJ matter so much to you? (5, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677392)

Fuck PJ. She's a publicity whore no better than Darl. Shameless publicity whore. She profited in a grand way from this too-doo. Point. Of. Fact.
And "who is PJ"? Just some Small Town Paralegal *that just happened to be interested in Linux*? - YEAH RIGHT. I got a bridge.
Reasonable people understand that PJ works for IBM. Reasonable people understand that there is no "PJ", that IBM spun up a screen name and went to town.

Even if your claims about PJ were true (and I do say if) what difference would it make? Why do you care? Why are you so angry?

Can you point out anything that PJ posted that is not true, or not fair?

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677502)

Wait, if PJ doesn't exist, then how does "she" profit in a grand way?

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (4, Informative)

God of Lemmings (455435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677588)

Reasonable people understand that PJ works for IBM. Reasonable people understand that there is no "PJ", that IBM spun up a screen name and went to town.

Yes, but intelligent people at least look stuff up before spouting unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7673520174.html [linux-watch.com]
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf [groklaw.net]

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31676920)

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (3, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677012)

There's actual volume. Who the hell is *buying* it? Some badly programmed robot?

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (5, Insightful)

adwarf (1002867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677218)

Shorts closing their position?

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677060)

Yikes. Guess there's a few sharp thinking short sellers wearing a satisfied smirk today.

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (1, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677150)

What about when Novell starts abusing their position? Maybe not now, maybe not in a few years, but you never know what happens or who buys what company..

Re:Seven years for eight hours work (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677576)

I like the forecast further down that page ("12 month forecast unavailable.")

Horray! (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676730)

It's about time to hear a verdict on this one?

Re:Horray! (3, Insightful)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677590)

All that we can be sure of is that several million dollars of Microsoft money will be going to a few private individuals for the fantastic work they have done in destroying the reputation of the open source concept.Ask any drone in a large company, Open Source is bad news because there are law suits against it. I expect that they can get pretty well paid jobs with Scientology next.

Glad its Novell (1)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676738)

SCO is a jerk...

Novell Wins (2, Insightful)

Prien715 (251944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676742)

Novell wins...fatality!

Hopefully they'll finally die. But surely they'll be back in a George Romero movie.

Re:Novell Wins (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677562)

SCO will survive for as long as Hollywood scriptwriters need material for zombie and vampire movies. Besides, you need holy water to kill the undead. In this case, I suggest filling a tanker with the stuff and using a water cannon.

More Than McBride (3, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676758)

Remember, It's not *just* Darl McBride, it's also the people that allowed him to do this. That includes the rest of the board and the stockholder of SCO. McBride might be the public figure-head, but he didn't do it on his own.

Re:More Than McBride (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676804)

Aaaaand we shouldn't forget the other interested parties [wikipedia.org] . Who knows why Microsoft would fund a litigious shell of a company, but those who forget it are likely to suffer if they start trusting Microsoft too much.

Re:More Than McBride (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677470)

BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them.

Did you even bother to read your own link?

Re:More Than McBride (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676948)

That's part of the price of being the main guy.. When things are up you shine and are on covers of magazines, when they aren't, you get the blame.

Re:More Microsoft Than McBride (5, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677056)

This has been a Microsoft smear campaign again Linux all along, and it's not over. Why do you think that MS has been funding the entire thing?

Re:More Microsoft Than McBride (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677512)

What does linux (lowercase 'L') have to do with Unix (capital 'U')?

Re:More Than McBride (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677326)

I believe Darly McBride hired his brother's lawfirm to handle this. I believe that is a means to funnel the company monetary assets out of SCO to the family. That's the way it seems to me.

Doubt it (4, Informative)

Arimus (198136) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676760)

No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this.

Unless someone finds a way to remove Darl's vocal cords we'll have not heard the last of this by any stretch of the imagination...

We're doomed to hear SCO's moanings until DNF is released.

Re:Doubt it (5, Insightful)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676926)

"finds a way to remove Darl's vocal cords"?

There are several ways to do that which are quite well known. It's a testament to our community that no-one has implemented any.

Re:Doubt it (2, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677586)

You're assuming said vocal chords are in the physical plane of existence. I see no evidence to support this theory. Darl is clearly a Greater Demon from the ninth plane of hell.

Re:Doubt it (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677378)

Darl no longer works for SCO from what I understand. He was removed some time ago. Though he doesn't, I believe he has (or tried to) purchase(d) some assets of SCO for a ridiculously low sum of money, like in the $30,000 range.

Novel (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31676770)

Hurray! Just in time for Novell to be bought out by Microsoft.

Write out the Questions (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676998)

Are there specific claims? Like can Novell/SCO/DogNextDoor be persuaded to reveal exactly what is in any way questionable about these Unix copyrights "in" Linux? It would be nice to have a list: so they can all be written out.

Re:Write out the Questions (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677294)

All the Linux-related claims were dismissed long ago. This case has not been about Linux for years. Even if SCO had won this trial they could not have done anything to Linux.

Re:Write out the Questions (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677366)

Good. Thank you.

Re:Write out the Questions (2, Funny)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677468)

THIS IS NOT TRUE! Linux uses Unix copyrights! - Daryl
In other news: Hell has declared a snow emergency. Souls will only be picked-up on snow routes.

Re:Novel (1)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677062)

Not bloody likely, unless all the interest in Unix goes to someone else they don't own... And what other reason is there to do anything with Novell other than grind them in the dust?

What part of "convicted monopolist" is hard to understand?

Re:Novel (0)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677336)

> What part of "convicted monopolist" is hard to understand?

There is the fact that being a monopolist is not a crime, to start with...

Re:Novel (1)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677504)

The technical term is "Misuse of Monopoly", that is a crime.

Re:Novel (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677584)

Novell just turned down a 2 billion dollar offer. Obviously they value the UNIX copyrights much higher. Now it just needs to find a buyer with more then 2 billion dollars in pocket.

Winning in this case... (5, Interesting)

weinrich (414267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676778)

...is like declaring victory because you're the last person to hit the ground in the plane crash. How much has this cost Novell and IBM in real $$'s? With SCO bankrupt how can either expect to recoup any of the 7 years of court costs?

Re:Winning in this case... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31676820)

The lawyers won. The longer this dragged on, the more they get paid. Simple really. Us developers are clearly in the wrong business.

Re:Winning in this case... (3, Informative)

doug (926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677374)

That is true for some of the lawyers, but David Boies's company took a one time fee up front and that is all that they get. They bet that SCO would win early (basically IBM caving in) and lost that bet.

Organ sale? (3, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676866)

I mean, their livers are probably shot, but I have to believe that there are other organs worth harvesting from the board of directors and the legal firm representing them.

Re:Organ sale? (5, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676958)

yes, the brains should be quite valuable, never having been used

Re:Organ sale? (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677068)

yes, the brains should be quite valuable, never having been used

No, no. In true zombie fashion, Darl would have eaten them long ago.

Re:Organ sale? (4, Interesting)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677478)

I realize you were making a joke (and a funny one at that) but, let's be serious - the people behind thing (Darl first and foremost among them) made TONS of money off of this. To imply that he (and his ilk) are stupid is missing the point. Just because he ran his business into the ground doesn't mean that he's run his own finances into the ground. Who cares about the success or failure of a company when you're sipping champagne on your yacht?

Re:Winning in this case... (3, Insightful)

durdur (252098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676918)

IBM almost certainly doesn't care about the cost, which isn't even a day's worth of revenue for them. They have filed counter-claims against SCO, and in theory could win damages, but since SCO has few assets and many creditors, they won't get paid. In a fairer world, SCO would have had to answer for its baseless campaign against Linux users much earlier. But they didn't - they got to put the victims of this campaign on the defensive, first.

Re:Winning in this case... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677238)

IBM and Novell may not win anything tangible from this, but in the future, any would-be SCOs now know something they didn't know before: even if it is technically cheaper to play ball with an extortionist, neither IBM nor Novell will do this. They will take the time and effort to crush you, repeatedly, until you stop.

Then again, as far as I know, nobody responsible for this SCO fiasco was ever charged with fraud. So the less for would-be SCOs might be that you can do whatever you like and you'll never face justice.

Unless that's the next step in this drama, of course.

Re:Winning in this case... (3, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677390)

Yep: even if it is technically cheaper to play ball with an extortionist, neither IBM nor Novell will do this.

Open the doors to one, and you'll have others knocking on the door. Pound that first one into a fine powder, the survival instinct of the others will kick in.

Re:Winning in this case... (5, Funny)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677466)

That's a valid question with respect to Novell, but asking how IBM can afford seven years of court costs is a bit like asking whether Sauron can stay up all night.

What? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31676846)

"It's taken 7 years, but the US court system has eventually done the right thing..."

This. Is a contradiction. Justice delayed is justice denied. Always.

Re:What? (4, Funny)

berashith (222128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677044)

No Shatner, it is not a contradiction; it is a sentence fragment.

Holy shit that's funny. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677236)

Thanks for making my afternoon!

Pedantary (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677258)

Technically, it was two sentence fragments.

Re:What? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677602)

To boldly. Fragment. What no man. Has fragmented before.

Not completely over (3, Informative)

awkScooby (741257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676860)

The jury part of the trial is over, but there are still some issues that are to be decided by the judge. The big one is SCO's claim of "specific performance." Their argument is that if the copyrights didn't transfer (which the jury just said they didnt), that APA2 is a promise to transfer them, so Novell should be forced to transfer them now. If the judge rules against SCO, it's over, barring an appeal that SCO can't afford.

Re:Not completely over (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677146)

that SCO can't afford

Don't be so sure. If there's one thing SCO might actually hold a patent on, it would be increasingly complicated ways to avoid death.

Re:Not completely over (2, Insightful)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677284)

All appeals are paid for, SCO can sue until the SCOTUS tells them to get lost. Even if the bankruptcy court now moves them to chapter 7, some mystery buyer can still pay $1 for the rights to the lawsuit, and pursue it as successor in interest. The fat lady is hoarse from all the singing she's done in this case.

Good (1)

seanellis (302682) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676862)

It will be very difficult for SCO to spin this one in a positive direction. Darl McBride isn't at SCO any more, which is a shame. It would have been good to see him go down with the ship.

Roll on the IBM case.

In depth coverage on Groklaw (1)

Palestrina (715471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676864)

The coverage of record on this story, from the beginning, through the dark days and the brighter days, and on until the very end, has been Groklaw [groklaw.net] . I highly recommend taking a look there for more commentary.

Who's next? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31676868)

Microsoft got good mileage out of SCO in their attack on Linux. Wonder who will do their bidding next?

Re:Who's next? (3, Interesting)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677014)

Wonder who will do their bidding next?

NOVELL [novell.com]

Still more to come though... (5, Informative)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31676988)

There are several important ruling that need to occur. There is still at issue a decision of "Specific Performance", where SCO has made an argument that if the Jury says the APA + admendments did not constitute an official transfer of copyrights, that Novell should be required to create such a document to transfer the copyrights since they are "needed".

Unfortunately for SCO's theory on this, old SCO didn't need the copyrights for their business, which is what was sold to new SCO, and Darl himself testified that the business can be run without the copyrights (statements he made after the FIRST time Novell was told they owned the copyrights by the previous Judge in this case). The wording is also to the effect of "copyrights needed at the time of this APA", which is BEFORE the SCOSource business was conceived to sue Linux users. And then you also have to deal with the fact that "Specific Performance" is only enforced when the party requesting "Specific Performance" has itself performed to the letter of the contract, which there is already case law and verdict on file that SCO has not done so, by not remitting the portion of the license buy-out from Sun and the SCOSource license to Microsoft which were both found to be SYSV Unix licenses, not solely UnixWare licenses (as SCO would change their story afterwards when realizing they were contractually required to remit 95% of the funding SYSV licenses to Novell and not keep it for themselves, and after they have filed to the SCC that they were Unix licenses not UnixWare... one of the stumbling blocks they hit when trying to claim otherwise later).

Re:Still more to come though... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677206)

Could someone translate that into something nice and readable? x86 Assembly, maybe?

Re:Still more to come though... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677480)

I thought it was quite clear. To summarize: the judge still has to rule on a few things, but he is unlikely to rule in favor of SCO. Even if he did SCO would get nothing of significant value.

Re:Still more to come though... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677516)

> The wording is also to the effect of "copyrights needed at the time of this APA"

No. The wording is not to that effect. It was:

"""Excluded Assets: All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."""

This amendment 2 came between the time that SCO (the original) sent a letter to Microsoft requesting that SCO will cease to pay royalties to MS for code that is no longer in Xenix/OpenServer and taking them to the EU to have these royalties squashed.

It is likely that this was the 'technology acquisition' that Amendment 2 was written for and, as it happened, they were not required after all. If SCO had been challenged over copyrights then they may have required some.

The paragraph continues: """However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks."""

The third party being contemplated probably being Microsoft.

FTFS (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677000)

No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this.

What are you doing? Trying out lines for cheesy movie dialog?

[Novell stands over the fallen body of SCO]

Novell: No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this. Come on everybody, let's go home

[As Novell turns and walks off, the hand of SCO twitches slightly and we hear a sinister laugh.]

[Cut to credits]

SCO has more lives than Freddy Krugger (2, Interesting)

KDN (3283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677010)

How many times have we pronounced the SCO lawsuits dead? I think its more times than Freddy Krugger has been brought back to life. I think Freddy said it best to Jason: "Why won't you die?"

Damn it Taco... (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677032)

"No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this."

This is the SECOND time in the past week you've made me snort coffee!

Wait..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677052)

its a trick.... Get an axe!

The last we'll hear? Not according to the link... (4, Informative)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677098)

' The former federal judge overseeing The SCO Group's bankruptcy said a jury decision today that Novell Inc., and not SCO, owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating system does not end the company's litigation against others.

Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed in Delaware, said the company is "deeply disappointed" in the jury's verdict in the dispute over which company owned the copyrights to Unix, which is widely used in business computing.

But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues.

"The copyright claims are gone, but we have other claims based on contracts," Cahn said. '

So, a victory, but not quite the end. Still, my money's on IBM...

Re:The last we'll hear? Not according to the link. (1)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677282)

But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues.

"The copyright claims are gone, but we have other claims based on contracts," Cahn said. '

The moment the defense points out that SCO knowingly added the code into Linux and distributed it under the GPL the trial should be over.

Right?

Someone has to say it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677356)

' The former federal judge overseeing The SCO Group's bankruptcy said a jury decision today that Novell Inc., and not SCO, owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating system does not end the company's litigation against others.

Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed in Delaware, said the company is "deeply disappointed" in the jury's verdict in the dispute over which company owned the copyrights to Unix, which is widely used in business computing.

But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues.

"The copyright claims are gone, but we have other claims based on contracts," Cahn said. '

So, a victory, but not quite the end. Still, my money's on IBM...

CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!!!!

Re:The last we'll hear? Not according to the link. (2, Funny)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677490)

Cahn has never heard of the Nazgul?

Obligatory.... (1)

RKThoadan (89437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677106)

And there was much rejoicing!

No doubt this is the last we will ever hear... (3, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677108)

of any of this?

No! You must kill it! Kill It With FIRE!!!

wait a minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677120)

From TFS: "No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this."

ORLY?

Celebrate victory! (1)

xmorg (718633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677130)

This is a great day for open sourcE! Get the beer and python, and lets play roguelikes deep into the night....

SCO still wants to pursue the IBM case (4, Informative)

awkScooby (741257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677174)

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202 [sltrib.com]

"Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM"

Re:SCO still wants to pursue the IBM case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677320)

Caaaaaahnnn!

Re:SCO still wants to pursue the IBM case (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677324)

And IBM says that sucks. There is nothing left for us to get when we bury you. What a waste of time.

Re:SCO still wants to pursue the IBM case (4, Funny)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677572)

I believe that IBM will settle for having a pyramid of skulls in Lindon, UT as a warning to any future Darl McBrides.

Not a Linux story (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677224)

All the Linux-related claims were dismissed years ago.

Novell ONLY got what USL vs BSDI settlment didn't (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677234)

Keep in mind that USL vs BSDI settlement (secret and first published on GROKLAW), did not give the IP or copyrights for all of Unix to USL (USL was owned by Novell at the time of the settlement). The settlement when made public showed us that indeed much of Unix was not proprietary at all. So, it is no wonder that Novell didn't transfer to Santa Cruz Operations, as they didn't have all the marbles to transfer, so they didn't want everyone to know this, so they didn't transfer any (otherwise, then they would have to let the world know about the USL vs BSDI settlement (and everyone then would stop paying any money to Novell or any UNIX tax collector)... when BSD was free !

So - saying that Novell has all the IP marbles in the Unix world, and that Novell OWNS the Unix copyrights (all of them), is not exactly correct.

This is not the last we will ever hear of any this (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31677256)

You forgot Slashdot dupes!

Too early for... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31677534)

April Fools' Day

(Posting twice isn't)

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>