×

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 Asks Judge To Give Them the Unix Copyright

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the we-promise-to-walk-it-every-day dept.

Caldera 286

Raul654 writes "In March, the jury in the Novell/SCO case found that Novell owns the copyright to Unix. Now, SCO's lawyers have asked judge Ted Stewart to order Novell to turn over the Unix copyright to them. 'SCO contends the jury did not answer the specific issue before Stewart that involves a legal principle called "specific performance," under which a party can ask a court to order another party to fulfill an aspect of an agreement.'" Over at Groklaw, PJ is deep into a community project to annotate SCO's filing. It's for the benefit of future historians, but it makes amusing reading now.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

286 comments

sco still alive? (4, Insightful)

nonewmsgs (1249950) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013486)

isn't sco dead yet?

Re:sco still alive? (0, Redundant)

oracle_of_power (750351) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013524)

isn't sco dead yet?

The same thought crossed my mind.

Re:sco still alive? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013574)

Don't forget to pay your $699 SCO licensing fee, you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Re:sco still alive? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013646)

That's very insensitive of you. They prefer to be called "cock-smoking tea partiers."

Re:sco still alive? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014196)

Actually we prefere to be called average American patriots who are sick and tired of being ripped off by the politicians elected to represent us. You want to support all these social causes? Good, empty your own pockets and donate to the cause. Your cause will gain far more than if some politician raises taxes with a promise to provide support. All that ever happens is taxes go up with little to no benefit being provided. You liberals keep electing people that are ripping you (and us) off, and people call us stupid? Besides, aren't the progressives the ones that keep pushing gay marriage? Seems like you guys would be the cock smokers.

Re:sco still alive? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014590)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh was found dead in his Florida home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the average American patriot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to the conservative movement. Truly an American icon.

Re:sco still alive? (4, Funny)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013588)

I think this is the second coming of SCO.

Re:sco still alive? (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014126)

I think this is the second coming of SCO.

Actually, I think this is at least number 3.

Number two was the previous litigious incarnation, and number one was the original Santa Cruz Organization who actually made software.

This thing just won't die.

Cheers

Re:sco still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014218)

The original SCO is now Tarantella, who is now owned by Oracle.

This current litigious incarnation is what is left of Caldera.

Re:sco still alive? (5, Interesting)

pushf popf (741049) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014946)

The original SCO is now Tarantella, who is now owned by Oracle.
This current litigious incarnation is what is left of Caldera.


It's actually really funny they chose that name, since a Caldera is actually the remains of a formerly-functional volcano. They occasionally emit smoke, but that's about it.

Caldera - yeah, great name (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32015032)

> is what is left of Caldera [wikipedia.org]

Remind me not to buy stock in a company calling itself SuperEruptor Systems...

Re:sco still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014896)

How can you kill that which has no life?

sco "open server" gnu utilities (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014628)

http://www.sco.com/products/openserver6/osr6-gnu-utils-PA-FINAL.pdf [sco.com]
GNU Utilities Supplement for SCO OpenServer 6
The GNU Utilities Supplement represents the initial supported release of a selection of key GNU utilities for OpenServer 6. With these key utilities customers will be able to more easily port and develop open source products and customer specific applications for OpenServer 6 using the native C and C++ Development System. It will also allow active participation in open source development projects and deployment of updated releases of those projects based on customer specific schedule requirements

Re:sco still alive? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013596)

isn't sco dead yet?

Of course SCO isn't dead yet. The undead require special tools to kill like sunlight and a stake throw the heart. Any idea how hard it is to hunt down all sco people and stake them? Especially since they all hide in deep dark damp caves were even the brave are afraid to venture.

Re:sco still alive? (1)

Brian Edwards (1429281) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014664)

Of course SCO isn't dead yet. The undead require special tools to kill like sunlight and a stake throw the heart.

The problem is that SCO doesn't have a heart. But the sunlight that Groklaw has been shining on them has proven very painful.

Re:sco still alive? (4, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013782)

Ummm ... don't forget who's funding them [wikipedia.org].

Re:sco still alive? (1)

krelian (525362) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014018)

Don't you mean, who funded them?

Re:sco still alive? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014380)

Have they spent it all yet? $106 million is quite a lot of money. Maybe it's in a special lawyer's trust fund to set them up for the long term.

Re:sco still alive? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013898)

Still alive just like like GLaDOS. They've got copyrights to claim, Linux companies to maim.

Re:sco still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013936)

Not dead yet.

No, but he will be by Thursday.

Re:sco still alive? (5, Funny)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013940)

That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die.


Just more evidence that SCO is an unholy abomination, an eldritch spawn from the depths, dreaming yet always on the verge of descending upon the Earth in a storm of chaos, madness and despair. Note the double meaning of "lie" in above excerpt from the necronomicon. Note also, that they used to be called Caldera - making their connection to sinister chthonic powers a wee bit too obvious for my taste...

IA! IA! SCO FHTAGN! CALDERA FHTAGN!

Re:sco still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014474)

Getting in touch with your inner Miigoh? LOL

Re:sco still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014822)

That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die.

Well, the death of the very last life in Universe will be the death of Death as well ... there'll be none to rejoice it, though.

Sorry about grim OT.

Re:sco still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014054)

"I'm not dead yet. It's just a flesh wound, really!"

Re:sco still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014400)

No, it's undead.

Re:sco still alive? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014518)

It's not dead - it's a zombie process. Which means, unfortunately, that "kill" doesn't work.

Re:sco still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014728)

Fine! /me reboots the universe

that ought to fix it

Re:sco still alive? (1)

Drekkahn (1773086) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014754)

So SCO is having to resort to using the Jedi mind trick? "Why dont you just give me the Unix copyright...." Whoo hoot. Ima Jedee !

One word: (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013532)

wat

PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing. (4, Informative)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013548)

"Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy!"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013664)

"Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy!"

More like, "Mommy, go down to Toys R Us, throw all their toys in a giant truck, and GIVE THEM TO ME!"

"BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!"

"WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH!!!!!"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing. (1)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014458)

Better yet: "Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy, so I can bully others!!"

Re:PJ, here is my annotation for the whole filing. (3, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014962)

It's pretty much "Mommy! Make Timmy give me the toy, so I can hit Susie with it!"

Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013590)

Zombies, Ghouls and Spectres are their distant cousins SCO will never die they just get the Michael Jackson head twitch...

Damn! (2, Funny)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013600)

I beginning to think SCO is trying for the Guinness Book of World Records under "Worlds Longest Running Soap Opera". How much longer do they have to go to get the title?

Wikipedia to the rescue (4, Informative)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013676)

The longest running soap opera is The Guiding Light, which started in 1937 on the radio and moved to television (while keeping the same cast and storyline) in 1952. The show was cancelled in 2009 due to low ratings, which makes the total running time about 72 years.

The SCO lawsuits against Linux and other Unices started in 2002 when Darl McBride become CEO of the company. If they can keep it up for another 65 years, they can claim the title of longest running soap opera rightfully theirs.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014048)

I thought The Guiding Light was picked up by a cable network for new episodes (much like CBS picked up Medium).

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014152)

According to Wikipedia, TGL was already on CBS when they started to make TV episodes in 1952, while at the same time still continuing the radio shows as well.

In 1956 the radio shows were discontinued, which concluded the shows' transfer from radio to television.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014406)

Obviously you read only half of what I said.

I said,

Didn't The Guiding Light get picked up by a cable network (much like CBS picked up Medium)?

Perhaps that clarifies it for you?

But that's ok, I'll just go look for myself.

And the answer to my question is a resounding: No. not that I care.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014620)

I'm sorry, I didn't understand you meant after the cancellation in 2009.

Why did you emphesize "cable network" though. Isn't CBS a cable network?

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue (2, Funny)

machine321 (458769) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014900)

Isn't CBS a cable network?

No. CBS is a television network. Ethernet, Arcnet, Token Ring and Localtalk are cable networks.

Re:Wikipedia to the rescue (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014654)

If they can keep it up for another 65 years, they can claim the title of longest running soap opera rightfully theirs.

Regrettably, the nature of the ongoing case is both funny and sad.

I'd encourage anyone who insists on weighing in on complex[1] legal issues by offering up naively simplistic interpretations, or worse, blathering on about "We used to have the Rule of Law. Now we have the Rule of Men.", to read through the annotated filing, while making note of the title[2].

As a side note, I think PJ deserves an award of some sort. And a raise. And if she just got a raise, she deserves another.

______________
1. Hint: Corporate, Bankruptcy, Criminal, Constitutional, Intellectual Property, etc., etc., etc., they're all fucking complicated.

2. If an argument with your boss, spouse or significant other hasn't led you to the conclusion that All Things Said or Written are subject to interpretation, then you'll have no problem accepting SCO's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It says so, right there, right?

hmm (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013612)

It's for the benefit of future historians

Good grief, let's not overstate the importance of this case.

Re:hmm (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013844)

It's for the benefit of future historians

Good grief, let's not overstate the importance of this case.

Are you kidding? This is monumental in showing clearly how stupid courts/court cases can be. This case went on for years without any shred of evidence ever!

There is generally very little respect for lawyers, and at uni (math/physics) we all think/thought such studies were basically worthless. These cases confirm we were/are right ;-)

And what about that comment I read in another story here on slashdot (about the Apple phone prototype):

Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.

That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.

Oh yeah, and I recently heard of a bunch of Lawyers in Alphen aan den Rijn near where I live (Netherlands) who double charge hours, charge hours as if they did the work themselves when some interns did it etc. This is not in the news but I know it via someone who worked there and left because of it. I would have gone to the police and get these basterds convicted! (but that's the choice the person who worked there).

Re:hmm (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013996)

at uni (math/physics) we all think/thought [legal] studies were basically worthless

It depends how you count "worth". If it's the improvement of mankind, then sure, scientists For The Win. If it's the way that 99.9% of people count it though - yachts, hookers and champaign - then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it for the lawyers.

Re:hmm (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014092)

Are you kidding? This is monumental in showing clearly how stupid courts/court cases can be. This case went on for years without any shred of evidence ever!

There was evidence; you might not have found it convincing, but it existed.

Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the value everyone knows about the narcissism of many math/physics majors, but if you're extrapolating legal systems Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.

That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.

Unbelievable? I find it suprising that you don't see the incredible untrustworthiness of such testimony. It's self-serving. If you've been arrested, why the hell should the court give ANY weight to something you said to save yourself at the time? Without any opportunity for the judge and/or jury to analyze how credible you are when you're saying it? If you want to rely on your own statements then you can get up on the witness stand and say it yourself, and be subject to cross-examination.

I mean, I have certain issues with how the rules against hearsay are implemented in our legal system, but you are completely and utterly wrong on this point.

Re:hmm (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014144)

Accidentally hit post; should have read: Yes, traditional math/physics major narcissism, etc., but if you are extrapolating the legal systems' value or integrity from one case, then that is poor science. Plus, with all due respect, I don't think you understand all of the issues involved, it wasn't just about ownership of copyrights.

Re:hmm (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#32015172)

Stick to a strict definition, and important parts of democracy and freedom are largely an illusion, too, because of the implementation. A few fundamental key parts are missing, or don't work. But that doesn't mean people don't strongly believe in it. In fact, they often get mighty angry if you talk about it or try to make these freedoms actually work. Just try to actually do something about unfair situations, instead of complaining about it, and you'll start finding limitations.

Re:hmm (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014174)

And what about that comment I read in another story here on slashdot (about the Apple phone prototype):

Furthermore, while cops can use anything you say AGAINST you in a court of law, if you ask them to repeat something you said that would help your case, that would be heresay, and therefore can not help you.

That's just fooking unbelievable. If that sort of nonsense persists in law and/or the way it's practiced, I have no respect for it nor the people involved in it.

This is 100% true. Cops in the US are not your friends & are not looking out for you in any fashion.

More info here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik [youtube.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE [youtube.com]

CLANG! (5, Funny)

zepo1a (958353) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013626)

[clang]
CORPSE COLLECTOR: Bring out your dead!
NOVELL: Here's one.
CORPSE COLLECTOR: Nine pence.
SCO: I'm not dead!
CORPSE COLLECTOR: What?
NOVELL: Nothing. Here's your nine pence.
SCO: I'm not dead!

And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (1, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013632)

I wonder just what would change if SCO did get it. Does Linux run UNIX? I guess the answer to that is "sort of"... And outside the US?

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (4, Insightful)

JiffyPop (318506) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013790)

There has been no examples exposed by SCO or anyone else that would indicated that Linux has anything to fear from the holder of UNIX copyrights, whoever that may be. If there were any code that infringes on a copyright then that functionality can be re-coded from the specifications, eliminating any infringement.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (5, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#32015190)

SCO: Linux violates our copyrights on UNIX!
IBM: No, it does not. Not a single line infringes on UNIX
Novell: Wait, what? We own copyright on UNIX.
SCO: Your honor, we are unable to pursue the lawsuit against Linux infringing upon our rights to UNIX because we don't have them, Novell does. Could you force them to hand these rights over to us so that we could continue suing Linux?

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014270)

it'd mean that SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

now, if the court decision sticks, means their case against IBM have no basis. and since novell own the copyright, novel can simply put everything in public domain, something that AT&T already did with some ancient versions, reducing even more their chances against the blue suits from armonk.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (4, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014616)

it'd mean that SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

Getting the copyrights now shouldn't help them. All the code in Linux has been already distributed by the current Unix copyright holders under the terms of the GPL. Even if SCO gets the copyrights, they can't revoke the perfectly valid license that has already been granted to any Unix code that might happen to be in Linux.

Oh, and it was SCO (Caldera) that put Ancient Unix in the public domain. Ironically, they probably did so illegally, since Novell owned the copyrights, not that Novell is likely to complain at this late date.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014756)

Ultimately, that would mean nothing. Even if SCO somehow prevailed here and received the copyrights, its case against IBM is still baseless, and whatever few customers they might still have are probably in the process of migrating to a system supported by a more stable company.

Re:And if SCO _did_ get it... what? (2, Interesting)

burnin1965 (535071) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014986)

SCO's case against IBM would have _some_ (and i say _some_) merit.

Actually, no, the Caldera / The SCO Group lawsuit never had any merit and it was learned through discovery that it was known by all the Caldera / The SCO Group insiders that there was absolutely no merit to their case from the onset.

After intensive and expensive internal attempts to find something that could be used to sue linux user's for a SCO Tax the Caldera / The SCO Group investigation found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever [groklaw.net].

Before this entire fiasco started it was known all the way to the top of their organization that there was no basis for their plans, yet they went forward with the scam anyway. Many people have lost their jobs, some have lost money and a few have actually lost their lives from this scam. If there were any justice this single fact uncovered in discovery would have resulted in fraud charges against the perpetrators of this scam long ago.

Shades of Charlie Brown (2, Funny)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013678)

Don't know if anyone else remembers "It's Flashbeagle, Charlie Brown"....

Judge: What are you doing, SCO?
SCO: I'm waiting for my sweet baboo.^W^W^W^W^W suing Novell because they assigned us the copyright to Unix.
Novell: We did not assign you the copyrights!
SCO: Novell sold us the copyright in 1995.
Novell: WE DID NOT!
SCO: Well, you should have!
Judge: Oh, brother.

Hey Judge, while you're listening (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013692)

Hey your Judgeousness, while you're listening, I'd like a pony.

Re:Hey Judge, while you're listening (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32015250)

Just make certain that it's a pretty pink pony!!!!

slasher movie (1)

AceJohnny (253840) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013730)

picture it: In the living room, the Killer (SCO) is lying on the ground, dead. The Hero (Novell) can finally relax and embrace his Girl (the OSS community). But no, shocking twist! The Killer rises behind them, brandishes a knife, and...

what's worse (1)

dtzitz (937838) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013756)

That this SCO is doing this or that there is a legal avenue for them to do it?

Re:what's worse (2, Interesting)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014086)

That this SCO is doing this or that there is a legal avenue for them to do it?

Note: This response is going to ignore that both a federal judge and, after an appeal sent it back to the courts, a federal jury found that Novell kept control of the UNIX copyrights, since in theory SCO could appeal the second decision.

What, you didn't think there would be laws to force a company to abide by a contract they agreed to?

Having said that, as I recall said contract's second amendment* said something about selling the copyrights to SCO if they could show a reason that they would need them during the course of administering the UNIX license program. Which SCO never did.

Heck SCO, if you can't even adhere to the terms of your possibly fraudulent contract amendment, how can you possibly expect to win this?

* a potentially fraudulent document which SCO "found in a drawer" and Novell strangely didn't have a copy of, presumably signed by Ray Noorda, CEO of Novell when said contract was executed in the 90s and owner of The SCO Group at the time this lawsuit started...

Make. It. Stop. (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013776)

Seriously, at what point does the legal system decide it's fed up with their bullshit and put a stop to it. Everyone deserves their day in court but I think SCO has gotten more than their due...

Re:Make. It. Stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013864)

Joey: Dad, Why is america the greatest country in the world?

Nick: Because of our endless appeal system...

Re:Make. It. Stop. (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013878)

When SCO decides to stop spending money on lawyers. The problem is SCO managed to sucker the lawyers in at the beginning into an up front fee and the lawyers are committed to see it through "all appeals". So while SCO is now bankrupt and running on a loan in bankruptcy over its non-existant IP the lawyers are still "happily paid" and running this thing.

So the lawyers are committed. I sort of hope this is the lawyers doing an exit strategy of over committing on a stupid claim that will get denied so they can then make a short appeal which will also get denied then exit. Then they can point at this filing and say "see we did our best".

Re:Make. It. Stop. (2, Insightful)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013974)

It's even better for the lawyers: They can point to this case for any prospective clients and show how totally committed they are to any case they take on.

Re:Make. It. Stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014140)

It was clear a few months into this farce that SCO had little chance to prevail before a judge or a jury.

The force that keeps it still alive is that SCO got the money from Microsoft to spend on lawyers in this anti-Linux nuisance lawsuit. Microsoft gave them $30m directly and $50m indirectly - that kind of money is enough for a decade of litigation.

It's a win-win situation for Microsoft, it's a win-win situation for the SCO board (who walked away with millions) and it's a win-win situation for the lawyers.

It's a loss for everyone else on the planet.

Welcome to the concept of monopoly-financed nuisance lawsuits. Every time you buy a Windows equipped computer you are forced to finance such lawsuits.

Re:Make. It. Stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014230)

One of the lawyers is also the brother of the SCO ex-director, so the family wins either way :-)

captcha: funnily

Re:Make. It. Stop. (2, Insightful)

hrieke (126185) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014404)

But... They wouldn't have done their best.
You'd never want your lawyer to short your appeals- that would be grounds for another appeal (they didn't do everything possible) and be a career suicide for your lawyer (who'd want to hire someone who didn't do everything possible for you; bar sanctions; plus a law suite when you sue for failing to do everything possible all come to my mind).

You want this case battle tested to the very, very, very bitter end. Each of these scars give armor and defense to Linux and GNU.
Anything less would not do.

Re:Make. It. Stop. (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#32013948)

IANAL, but AFAIK most legal systems do have a mechanism for stopping vexatious litigants. But it's usually intended to deal with people who waste court time with stupid cases. The sort of person who'd sue McDonalds because there was chicken in their chicken sandwich meal.

Perhaps some lawyer will enlighten me (NYCL?), but my understanding is it's much harder to do that against someone who keeps on coming up with claims which may actually have a sound legal footing at first glance.

In any event, I'd dearly love to know how these lawyers are getting paid now. Unless the law firm has taken it on as some sort of "no-win, no-fee, and if that means appealing until such time as we wind up in front of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court then so be it" basis.

Re:Make. It. Stop. (0)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014084)

...coming up with claims which may actually have a sound legal footing at first glance.

They have been in front of a judge and lost, then they were in front of a jury and lost. At this point SCO has nothing (legal footing) of that left except to be vexatious.

IANAL

Re:Make. It. Stop. (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014970)

AFAICT, their argument is now "Novell didn't sell us the copyrights, but that's not what the intention was when the agreement was signed. So we'd like you to overlook the letter of that agreement and instead consider its original purpose."

Just once, I'd like a judge to say "You know what? At the rate you lot are going, I'm going to be dead before this case is finished. In fact, everyone in this room is going to be dead before the case is finished. So instead I'm ordering that we forget the case altogether and go for a nice picnic and play Frisbee in the park."

Re:Make. It. Stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014506)

IIRC (from reading Groklaw over the years) the SCO lawsuits were special because SCO initiated the litigation, and then tried their best to drag their feet for the next 7 years with delays, changing the actual scope of the lawsuit (see SCO-IBM lawsuit is currently called "second amended complaint"), going bankrupt 1 day before an important decision in the case, etc. etc.

This is apparently abnormal behaviour and the USA law system wasn't prepared for it. Normally, the litigant/persecutor(sp?) feels wronged and therefore wants to have the lawsuit finished (to their benefit of course) as soon as possible, as in "justice delayed is justice denied". Normally the defendant may drag their feet but in this case the persecutor.

The benefit to SCO's puppetmasters was of course that large companies didn't dare to migrate to Linux for the past 7 years. The FUD value was enormous. "Why don't we switch to Linux?" "What! And get sued by SCO for $699/computer?"

Isn't it cold here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013946)

I see dead people!

RIP SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013954)

Please, let them just lay down and die. And if they have any money left, they can send it to me.. mohaha

Rule number 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32013986)

Double Tap

Oh god (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014070)

The OP is someone I gave a BJ to while my boyfriend wasn't around!

They're the Black Knight of the Holy Grail (4, Funny)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014496)

All their legs and arms have been chopped off and they're still taunting the legal system.

Running away, eh? Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!

Define "No" (4, Funny)

PineHall (206441) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014584)

From the Article:

The jury was asked, "Did the amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the Unix and UnixWare copyrights from Novell to SCO?" It answered, "No," ... SCO contends the jury could have meant various things by its verdict that do not preclude Stewart from ordering the transfer.

What part of "No" do you not understand?

Haven't we learned anything about killing zombies? (1)

Rastl (955935) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014648)

Double tap. Ammo is cheap.

Then again it sounds like whoever is advising them needs a double tap too. Not a zombie? Works anyway.

I'm sorry but... (1)

SphericalCrusher (739397) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014780)

Is this an April Fools joke? But it's not the first? Hm. I basically read this like... "okay, I lost in court, but Judge, can you give me the copyright so I can win?" So pathetic.

Best part: Copyrights and Copywrongs citation (4, Informative)

ari_j (90255) | more than 3 years ago | (#32014882)

I don't have time to read the whole thing that SCO filed at the moment, and likely won't, but a quick scan of the table of authorities shows that SCO cited an article entitled Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity, 3 J. High Tech. L. 1 (2003) to support their campaign to threaten one of the greatest creative accomplishments in computer technology (an entirely free, open-source operating system available to all and competitive with thousand-dollar alternatives). Who wants to call Alanis this time?

This is a triumph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32014960)

I'm making a note here: "huge success".

Still alive...Still alive...still alive.

Can I get my Unix license back? (2, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#32015192)

So, does that mean that everyone who paid for a Unix license from SCO can sue SCO to get a refund? Or are those people too embarrassed to admit what they have done?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...