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!

Judge Rejects SCO's Motion For a New Trial

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the civil-procedure's-too-good-for-'em dept.

Unix 168

An anonymous reader writes "A judge has rejected SCO's motion for a new trial in the company's dispute over UNIX intellectual property ownership. The ruling validates a verdict that was issued in April by a jury who determined that Novell, and not SCO, is the rightful owner of the UNIX SVRX copyrights. This means SCO cannot continue to pursue its litigation against IBM and other Linux users. 'There was substantial evidence that Novell made an intentional decision to retain ownership of the copyrights,' the judge wrote in his decision. 'The Court finds that the verdict is not clearly, decidedly, or overwhelmingly against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, SCO is not entitled to a new trial.'"

cancel ×

168 comments

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

Groklaw link (4, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528560)

Come on guys. Groklaw [groklaw.net] has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article [groklaw.net] there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Re:Groklaw link (4, Insightful)

homey of my owney (975234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528656)

Don't worry. There will almost certainly be another opportunity. This thing just won't die.

Re:Groklaw link (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529088)

Don't forget to pay your 699 dollar SCO licensing fees, you cock-smoking tea baggers.

Fail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529136)

The fee troll had "Don't forget..." for his subject line not in the body. There was a dollar sign in front of "699", no commas and there was no hyphen between "cock smoking"

Re:Groklaw link (0)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529138)

"Don't forget to pay your 699 dollar SCO licensing fees,"

That will be more than SCO's market cap in a little bit. Ralph Yarro's $2 million gamble to help keep the SCO zombie alive doesn't look so good now ...

Re:Groklaw link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529106)

Is this in the Guinness Book for world record beating of a dead horse?

Re:Groklaw link (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529386)

no, but your comment is under the 'fail' section.

Re:Groklaw link (1)

mishehu (712452) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529550)

If only somebody could put a fork in them... I think they (SCO) are done. we don't want them to get burnt now...

Re:Groklaw link (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529698)

Unfortunately with a company infected such as SCO we're looking at zombie cases for eternity - resurrected cases that just seek to sap the intellectual capabilities of anyone involved.

We need someone armed with a lawnmower, cricket bat, or the likes to put this one to rest.

Re:Groklaw link (1)

cheezegeezer (1765936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529780)

<quote><p>Unfortunately with a company infected such as SCO we're looking at zombie cases for eternity - resurrected cases that just seek to sap the intellectual capabilities of anyone involved.</p><p>We need someone armed with a lawnmower, cricket bat, or the likes to put this one to rest.</p></quote>

I got a nice Forgan 10.5 degree driver good for 280 yards think that might do a job on them ..

thats IBMs job (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530734)

and im sure they can come up with the tools needed

Re:Groklaw link (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530060)

One copy of SCO UnixWare is bad enough. You want to create a fork of it as well?!?!?!?!?

Re:Groklaw link (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530220)

If there was ever a zombie that needed braaaaaaains, it would be SCO.

Re:Groklaw link (2, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528696)

Indeed. I also think there needs to be a 'SCO' icon ... maybe something similar to Mr. Hankey with very dead eyes and draped in a sash covered in Linux kernel code?

Re:Groklaw link (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529058)

That's what the "blue and red Mickey Mouse ear logo" icon is for. It was the logo of Caldera before it became SCO, and now SCO has become almost as litigious as Disney (except less competent).

Re:Groklaw link (2, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529242)

I also think there needs to be a 'SCO' icon .

You could just use the Microsoft Borg icon.

Re:Groklaw link (1)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528820)

Hear! Hear!

Groklaw forever!

Ars Has Too Many Bright Colors!

Post No Bills!

Re:Groklaw link (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528922)

But does anyone on Slashdot don't know that Groklaw has been covering it from day one?
I mean really? When you say SCO you might as well say Groklaw for most people on here.
Of course it is also hard not to use some colorful language before or after those three letters as well.

Re:Groklaw link (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529182)

Yabbut, Miss Jones once likened /. to pond scum & stated she felt unclean after browsing here for a few moments.
Prolly why the link was to ars.

Re:Groklaw link (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529546)

She is right in that assertion, but that's the charm of this place, and yes I also read Groklaw daily.

Re:Groklaw link (1, Troll)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529918)

Yes, so indeed did I. Not just read. I joined, commented, contributed cash, believed the hype, thought I was helping, proofed, supplied corrections blah, blah.
Then saw the insidious, and frankly ugly, nature of the moderation system, plus I couldn't quite reconcile the "open source" rhetoric on the site with the "This is my space, agree with me completely or fuck off"
Oh yes, and the attack dogs. Jeez, disagree & you'd be jelly in a blender. "You dare impugn the God that is Pamela Jones? I will hunt down your children"

Shame really, at the time we all thought we were helping. As it turned out, not.

Re:Groklaw link (3, Funny)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530766)

Yes, so indeed did I. Not just read. I joined, commented, contributed cash, believed the hype, thought I was helping, proofed, supplied corrections blah, blah. Then saw the insidious, and frankly ugly, nature of the moderation system, plus I couldn't quite reconcile the "open source" rhetoric on the site with the "This is my space, agree with me completely or fuck off" Oh yes, and the attack dogs. Jeez, disagree & you'd be jelly in a blender. "You dare impugn the God that is Pamela Jones? I will hunt down your children"

I didn't know Pam invented Wikipedia.

Re:Groklaw link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32528962)

If you enjoy reading articles obviously written by a high school student. Although that's an insult to some teenagers I have met.

Re:Groklaw link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32528972)

Fair play to Ars: they at least did some real reporting while all PJ did was post 5 sentences and copy+paste the decision. Besides, it looks like Ars report was first.

Re:Groklaw link (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529210)

>Fair play (sic) to Ars: they at least did some real reporting while all PJ did was post 5 sentences and copy+paste the decision. Besides, it looks like Ars report was first.

The Ars Technica article has no real reporting beyond paraphrasing the judgment. There are no "new facts" that aren't in the actual judgment. So why not instead actually go to the site that has the judgment, as well as informed commentary on the judgment (groklaw)? You know, "view the source" ...

What is this Groklaw of which you speak. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529240)

I have never heard of it.

Re:What is this Groklaw of which you speak. (2, Informative)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529560)

Re:Groklaw link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529648)

Yes, props to PJ for seeing this epic through to the end. She rocks!

And let me be the first to say to SCO, "Ha ha!"

Re:Groklaw link (1)

mrflash818 (226638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529782)

Agreed!

Groklaw is the authoritive place for this case, in my opinion.

Re:Groklaw link (5, Informative)

yorugua (697900) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529944)

Or lets quote her:

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! Thursday, June 10 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT

Here you go, munchkins. Judge Ted Stewart has ruled for Novell and against SCO. Novell's claim for declaratory judgment is granted; SCO's claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealings are denied. Also SCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial: denied. Novell is entitled to waive, at its sole discretion, claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees.

CASE CLOSED!

Maybe I should say cases closed. The door has slammed shut on the SCO litigation machine. The judge writes in the Memorandum Decision and Order about SCOsource, "Finally, while SCO's witnesses testified that the copyrights were 'required' for SCO to run its SCOsource licensing program, this was not something that SCO ever acquired from Novell." He totally got it. He noticed Darl McBride admitted that SCO didn't need the copyrights for anything but SCOsource. It couldn't be any better if I'd written it myself.

Was the jury misled or confused? Not at all, the judge writes: "The jury could have rejected the testimony of SCO's witnesses for a number of reasons, including their lack of involvement in drafting the APA, the fact that there was little testimony on any actual discussions concerning the transfer of copyrights, or that many of the witnesses had a financial interest in the litigation."

"The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith," Stewart writes in the final judgment. I believe that means SCO v. IBM is essentially over now, unless IBM wishes to pursue its counterclaims.

And now it is -- finally -- time, once again, for my red dress! And a huge thank you to Michael Jacobs and the team at Morrison & Foerster, who never gave up but, more importantly, showed that you can fight hard and win with ethics and dignity, and to Sterling Brennan of Workman|Nydegger, who was frankly absolutely wonderful at trial. And thank you to you, Groklaw volunteers, because we made a difference in this world.

Re:Groklaw link (4, Informative)

daniel23 (605413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530418)

Thanks for citing her! However, the link to the red dress [groklaw.net] got lost and needs adding.

And In Other News (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530124)

And in other news, Hitler admits he probably lost the war.

Re:Groklaw link (1)

krewemaynard (665044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32531614)

Come on guys. Groklaw [groklaw.net] has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article [groklaw.net] there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Come on guys. Groklaw [groklaw.net] has been covering this thing since the very beginning. The least you could do is link to the article [groklaw.net] there. Give a little respect to Pam Jones for following this long slog like a trouper.

Patience...just wait for the dupe.

Good. (4, Insightful)

bi$hop (878253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528600)

I really hope this is the last I ever have to hear about SCO.

Re:Good. (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528648)

I really hope this is the last I ever have to hear about SCO.

Well, just remember that you can't spell scourge of the earth without SCO

Re:Good. (5, Funny)

Eudial (590661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528822)

I really hope this is the last I ever have to hear about SCO.

Well, just remember that you can't spell scourge of the earth without SCO

You can't spell breakfast scones either. Or scotland yard.

Re:Good. (5, Funny)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529010)

Or scrotum.

Just putting it out there. The word.

Re:Good. (0, Redundant)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529148)

and I just can't spell :(

Re:Good. (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529276)

In Soviet Russia, SCO helps spell MOSCOW!

In the rest of the world, SCO spells the answer to "What smells bad and spends forever circling the rim after you flush?"

SCO - the 7-Year Flush! That's a LOT of crap!

Cue Monty Python plague victim (4, Funny)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528654)

"I'm not dead yet!"

Re:Cue Monty Python plague victim (5, Funny)

No2Gates (239823) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528710)

It's only a flesh wound...

Re:Cue Monty Python plague victim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32528958)

Which fucking retard modded this flamebait???

Re:Cue Monty Python plague victim (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529016)

Someone who knows how the skits actually run, and doesn't just throw the whole of Holy Grail into a blender and pick random quotes?

Re:Cue Monty Python plague victim (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528770)

That and the dead parrot schene combined:

Community: "It's not pinin,' it's passed on! SCO is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late company! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-COMPANY!"

SCO: "I'm not dead yet"

At least IBM, Novell etc. got the pockets to handle it. A smaller company could have been legally torpedoed by this, even if they eventually won some what, 8 years down the road now?

Re:Good. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32528668)

I foresee your post being modded to 5:Funny in no time...

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32528750)

I foresee your post being modded to 5:Funny in no time...

I foresee your post being modded to 5:Insightful in less time.

Re:Good. (3, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528916)

Better shoot it in the head with a shotgun just to be sure.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530872)

These SCO lawsuits are like zombies. Always hungry for more "BRAINS!!!" because they don't have any of their own.

Let's hope that IBM's and Novell's lawyers remember Rule #N: "Double Tap".

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530942)

I think Ash said it best. "It's a trick. Get an axe."

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529836)

Judge Rejects SCO's Motion For a New Trial

    was quoted as mumbling to self "Won't you fuckers just die?"

Next up: SCO bankruptcy converted to Chapter 7 (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528664)

... because there's nothing else to do now except wind it u[.

Imagine your the judge (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528674)

I would think about changing my line of work if I was assigned SCO versus the World.
Is that where they came up with the title of that movie? Seriously SCO GIVE IT THE FUCK UP ALREADY.

Not how it works IMHO (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#32531030)

I would think about changing my line of work if I was assigned SCO versus the World.

Nah. What you've got there are lawyers who are getting paid. Doesn't matter if what they are doing is wrong and hopeless. Look at a lawyer's paycheck. For that, Sisyphus would probably wake up cheerful and show up for a day's work with a smile.

This is just lawyers being lawyers for the most part. Sure you get some good ones every so often, like Ray Beckerman. People who actually get into the field because they wish to be superheroes. But 99.9% of the world - regardless of their job - just want to get paid.

And you and I are probably no different. I've worked on software projects that were doomed. How about you? I worked on a project once for 3 years that I knew 6 months in was going to wind up in a box on a shelf. Did I care? Hell no. I was making a paycheck during the dot bomb. Plenty of my coder friends weren't.

Once SCO finally runs out of cash these guys will move on. Some of them will wind up working for Save the Puppies, some for the RIAA. Both will sleep well that night. It's just a job.

Oh, one more thing. The SCO lawyers didn't lose. They did what Microsoft (via BayStar) paid them to do. Defame Linux. I'm sure the instructions went like this. "Make it drag out as long as you can. Sew fear and doubt. Never surrender!" Fifty million bucks buys a lot of moral flexibility. And these are lawyers, which is a profession that isn't overly burdened with saints.

And on their resume for their next job they can say that they spearheaded an impossible effort. They moved market share towards their customer and away from an open source project that has a nebulous cloud of people working on it. They attacked a ghost, did it for a decade, and did that with a tenacity that would make a pit bull proud.

There are many places where someone with that kind of determination and moral flexibility would be most welcome. I expect a lot of these resumes to wind up on the desks of BP's HR department sometime in the near future.

Disappointing news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32528688)

I hate it when my favorite show doesn't get renewed for another season.

Re:Disappointing news (1)

Kumiorava (95318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529392)

At least this show came into conclusion. I hate it when some of these shows are cut in midseason.

SCO files new lawsuits against IBM, Oracle, God (3, Funny)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528708)

San Jose, CALIFORNIA. In response to a judge's dismissal of it's demands for a new trial today, SCO filed 10,000 new lawsuits against various entities including IBM, Oracle, and G-d. "One of these must stick," said SCO's Chief Extortion Officer. "It's not about principle. It's about being money-grubbing assholes."

Re:SCO files new lawsuits against IBM, Oracle, God (2, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528742)

It would have been more believable if you'd mentioned that SCO had hired *IAA's legal team to sue the first 10,000 Linux users in its efforts to stop the piracy of the Unix source code it doesn't rightfully own.

Re:SCO files new lawsuits against IBM, Oracle, God (1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529098)

It would have been more believable if you'd mentioned that SCO had hired *IAA's legal team to sue the first 10,000 Linux users in its efforts to stop the piracy of the Unix source code it doesn't rightfully own.

That was LAST WEEK, right?

In the year 3012.... (5, Funny)

jkinney3 (535278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528788)

The head of Daryl McBride is seen in court appealing the latest decision against SCO which declared Daryl McBride not eligible for compensation for inclusion into Futurama episodes on the grounds that he is "just wasting space now that other more important heads need shelf space for. Like Tiger Woods 9th wife" said Leyla. Bender, while trying to get McBride to bite his shiny metal ass, broke the head jar and dropped the head of McBride accidentally into a metal stamping machine. The head of Pam Jones laughed her jar fluid into a total froth while Fry looked on confused.

Re:In the year 3012.... (1)

qnetter (312322) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530180)

Darl.

Go Courts! (4, Funny)

Above (100351) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528842)

That got cleared up so quickly and easily, I'm impressed!

And in Other news TSCOG to retake the Caldera name (4, Interesting)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528888)

THe Sco Group is now a smoking crater rundown of the different cases

NOVELL V TSCOG: Goes to Novell (this is the basis for the rest of the Litigation Lotto)
TSCOG V IBM : the case that started it all
WAIVED BY ORDER OF NOVELL (IBM does get the counter claims)
SUSE V TSCOG (arbitration): Rendered Moot (lack of grounds)
The Sco Group bankruptcy Chapter 11: to be converted to Chapter 7 (a chunk of the money is now owed to NOVELL)

(the various smaller bit cases are now also Mooted)

One more case to be brought (2, Interesting)

6031769 (829845) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529336)

All it requires is for someone with stacks of time and money to take a look at the SCO corporate profile [sco.com] and sue them on the basis that just about everything written on that page is a lie.

I mean, does anyone really think that SCO is a "leading provider of software technology", or that their "highly innovative and reliable solutions help millions of customers grow their businesses everyday". As we have just seen, "SCO owns all rights and ownership of the core UNIX operating system source code" is about as untrue as it is possible to get. As a bonus, such a legal action would certainly conclude faster than the 7 years this has been going on.

Re:And in Other news TSCOG to retake the Caldera n (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32531050)

Red Hats case is not mooted. Since SCO does not have the copyrights they sued Redhat for violating, Red Hat's defamation case is a slam-dunk.

I know, it'll settle quietly.

SCO is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32528914)

open source CDE already

Re:SCO is dead (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529052)

Long live SCO.

tips on destroying zombie companies (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32528996)

1. Remember that cutting off the legal arms does no good.
2. Remember that zombie companies can continue to be threatening even if they have no leg to stand on.
3. Exposing and severing the connection between the brain and the rest of the corporate body may help, but the remaining parts can still remain dangerous, and typically twitch for some time.
4. Corporate zombies are often controlled by evil overlords. Real victory occurs only after the evil overlord is slain.
5. Remember that anything that was once good and lovable about the company that has been zombified is long gone and completely unrecoverable.
6. Zombie companies are frequently covered in parasites (lawyers).

Not over yet (5, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529036)

The article seem to suggest that the SCO v IBM is over. That's not quite correct. SCO's claims against IBM most likely will be voided. IBM however has counterclaims. At this point, IBM can't get much money but knowing IBM, they want to make an example of SCO so that no other company will do this to them again.

Re:Not over yet (1)

GoochOwnsYou (1343661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529206)

SCO also have contract disputes they will try and persue, the whole fallout over Project "Legend". They're not dead yet but you are right that IBM realises that open source is a big key to their success and do all they can to make sure SCO is dead for good, making an example for other companies.

Re:Not over yet (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529754)

SCO claims that IBM took IP from Project Monterrey and used it in AIX on their Power architecture. Under the terms of their deal, IBM could only do that if they also released Monterrey on Intel's Itanium. However Itanium was an troubled architecture that never found many customers and IBM backed out of later having only sold 40 licenses by 2002. According to former SCO CEO Ransom Love, IBM offered to pay SCO for their troubles but SCO refused. [practical-tech.com]

Re:Not over yet (4, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530364)

Actually IIRC IBM took code from AIX on Power and put it into Project Monterrey. SCO's claim was that IBM then took that code and contributed it to Linux, essentially claiming that they had control over anything that'd even touched Monterrey regardless of origin. The claim was even more ridiculous because the code they claimed IBM had contributed (JFS) wasn't the code contributed to Monterrey. IBM had originally written JFS for AIX on Power. Their Linux team had to create a completely new implementation of JFS from scratch, because the AIX driver couldn't be ported over to x86. And in fact the Linux team came up with such a superior implementation that IBM removed the original JFS driver (the one that got contributed to Monterrey) from AIX and ported the Linux JFS driver over to AIX on Power. So had SCO gotten past the twin hurdles of claiming control over IBM's independently-developed code just because it was contributed to Monterrey and the code they were suing over never having been contributed to Monterrey, they would've faced the hurdle of the code having come from Linux to Monterrey and not the other way around.

Of course, that's par for the course for SCO. Remember that their first allegedly infringing piece of code turned out not to even be theirs. The malloc() code they claimed was copied from SCO Unix into Linux turned out to be a piece of earlier code (released both under the BSD license multiple times and into the public domain by it's original author) that both SCO Unix and Linux had gone and used (well, SCO Unix used it, Linux had dropped it in favor of more modern code and when it was found the reaction was "What's that still doing there? Get rid of it, it's not being used and it's just cluttering things up.").

Re:Not over yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529912)

Novell has broad powers to wave claims that SCOX may have against IBM. Because SCOX's claims arrise from the Unix agreement/contract/license if falls under the clause that gives Novell control.

The chances of SCOX v IBM going forward are small - the exception being IBM's counter claims. But since that case is stayed.... I suspect SCOX will slip into liquidation without IBM being able to establish damages....

Re:Not over yet (2, Insightful)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 4 years ago | (#32531652)

SCO also have contract disputes they will try and persue, the whole fallout over Project "Legend". They're not dead yet

They're not dead bu8t they don't have money. Unless another devil, versus angel, investor gives them more money the bankruptcy court can shutter SCO.

Falcon

kill it (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529076)

Will someone please squash this bug please. It's still kicking and squirming about.

Re:kill it (4, Funny)

yo_tuco (795102) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529412)

"Will someone please squash this bug please."

Better yet, warm up your arm and be the first one to throw your best shot! Mulligans are allowed. My favorite McBride quote from a CRN Interview [crn.com] :

"
CRN: This lawsuit is very unpopular among many in the open-source community.

McBride: We're either right or we're not. If we're wrong, we deserve people throwing rocks at us..."

Re:kill it (3, Funny)

confused one (671304) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530472)

(Best Montgomery Burns voice) "Excellent." Pardon me while I go warm up.

Re:kill it (1)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529632)

The Nazgul still have their counterclaims alive in the IBM-SCO case. That could be the double-tap.

Isn't SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529126)

USER a term of abuse in the U.K.?

Re:Isn't SCO (2, Informative)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529224)

If you're thinking of "Scouser", it's the term for somebody from Liverpool. I don't think it's ever used in anything but it's factual sense. Whether that's abusive depends on what you think of coming from Liverpool. Me, I'm Scouse and proud of it.

Re:Isn't SCO (1)

grahamsaa (1287732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529474)

I've always used "liverpudlian" myself :p

Re:Isn't SCO (0, Offtopic)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530084)

s/it's/its/ Sorry.

Wait a second (1)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529212)

Isn't SCO going to buy Novell?

Re:Wait a second (1)

GoochOwnsYou (1343661) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529494)

The thought was that SCO sued IBM hoping that IBM would buy them out.

It's a trick! (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529226)

Get an axe... [youtube.com]

I'm sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529294)

I'm sure I'm not the first to say "about fucking time!", but I had to say it anyway.

Its a trick, get an axe! (1)

halfdan the black (638018) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529340)

Or, "we'll have to nuke them from orbit, its the only way to be sure"

Seriously, how is this thing still alive? Who or what keeps funding them? How the hell can they still be paying the layers after what is it now, 8 some odd years of loss after loss after loss. Do they have a single paying customer left??

So, how they hell is it still alive?

Re:Its a trick, get an axe! (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530816)

How the hell can they still be paying the layers after what is it now, 8 some odd years of loss after loss after loss.

They're not. BSF got a lump sum of about $31 Million to handle all court cases through all appeals.

Counterclaims... (5, Interesting)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529406)

I can't wait for IBM to sue for all the time and money spent [groklaw.net] just to gather the source code:

Complying with the Court's Order involved more than 4,700 hours of work from more than 400 IBM employees. This does not include the time spent by IBM's counsel and consultants on this project, which was likewise considerable. IBM produced a total of more than 80 GB of source code and other electronic data to SCO, and more than 900,000 pages of paper (which were scanned and produced in electronic form on CDs).

Guinnes? (5, Interesting)

Thraxy (1782662) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529444)

Does this count as the record for "longest continuous fail"? Or was that the Bush administration?

Re:Bush (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530282)

Def. the Bush Admin. Bush tried hard to torpedo the Constitution.

SCO was damn expensive, but the outcome was only delayed, not in doubt.

That's a lot of words for (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529576)

"Shut the fuck up already."

groklaw is to sco... (1)

mrflash818 (226638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530226)

groklaw is to sco as theoildrum is to bp :)

Zombies (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530500)

They do exist!

Interesting news (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530538)

Clearly Novell (and IBM) have all their legal ducks in a row, and, as you would expect, the judge clearly saw that. So the result shoupd be neither surprising nor unexpected.

Of course, it's almost universally agreed, both by people inside the computer/software industry and people outside, that SCO won a moral victoryeven as they lost on the detailed legal technicalties of the case.

Obligatory Zombieland quote (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530780)

In those moments where you're not quite sure if the undead are really dead, dead, don't get all stingy with your bullets. I mean, one more clean shot to the head, and this lady could have avoided becoming a human Happy Meal. Woulda... coulda... shoulda.

The lesson of this story is (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530830)

Don't make a deal with Novell unless you read the fine print carefully.

IT's ALIVE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530864)

It's Alive, It's Alive

finale (1)

BreazySpeculation (1802162) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530950)

The End.

When (1)

Bruha (412869) | more than 4 years ago | (#32531204)

Seriously there's a hole in the ground where the horse was and you keep hearing thuds every now and then.

Just Fucking Die Allready! (0, Redundant)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32531640)

I mean it. I wish this miserable excuse for a company would just shrivel up and disappear. They're like a little yapping dog that just keeps yap, yap, yapping away incessantly until you want to swat it with a baseball bat.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?