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 Against SCO Again

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the case-finally-closed dept.

Novell 152

duh P3rf3ss3r writes "The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has just affirmed the District Court ruling in SCO v Novell (PDF) in its entirety. The decision is quite a good read and lays out the reasons why the court has rejected, in toto, SCO's attempt to re-argue the case before the Court of Appeals. Is this the last gasp for SCO or will they try to appeal this to the Supreme Court? The betting lines open at 11..." Realistically this is the end of the line for the case.

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

its like star wars.... (1)

RyanCheeseman (1180119) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258776)

it never ends...

Re:its like star wars.... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258934)

I'm just surprised that there was enough of a horse's corpse left to beat up this time.

Cripes - even McBride is pretty much toast these days.

Re:its like star wars.... (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259026)

Lucky lawyers.

Re:its like star wars.... (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259484)

I have a sneaking suspicion that one dead horse has already decomposed and they're on to a new one!

Re:its like star wars.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37260850)


Re:its like star wars.... (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260000)

It ended. In 1983. The new shit is shit and doesn't count.

Not Dead Yet? (3, Interesting)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258782)

Seriously, how does SCO _still_ have any money left to pursue legal costs??

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258822)

The real question is: does the big money company that backed SCO's legal costs want to waste some more on this...

It's me. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258836)

I've been giving them $5 a week.

Look, I'm sorry, but it's the best entertainment available. :(

Re:It's me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259456)

I blame the Tea Party. I hear they never forgot to pay their $699 license fees.

Re:It's me. (0, Flamebait)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259800)

Oh, those cock smoking teabaggers.

Re:It's me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37260632)

Sadly, the entertainment value here is accurate!

I only gave a $1 a month.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258878)

Seriously, how does SCO _still_ have any money left to pursue legal costs?


Just in case... (4, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#37261296)

Just in case somebody thinks this anonymous coward is a member of the slashdot tinfoil hat brigade, blaming Microsoft for everything...

Halloween Document 10 [] lays out in intimate detail how Michael Anderer, a consultant to SCO, used Microsoft to gain up to in his on words "$82-86 million." Baystar's manager of their $50 million SCO investment complained [] : "Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would backstop, or guarantee in some way, Baystar's investment ... Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO."

The documents are in the public record, confirmed by all parties and well reported in the press. This is almost all of the money SCO used to fund their meritless 8-year legal campaign against Linux.

/And I'm not that AC either.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (3, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258924)

BS&F signed a contract saying they'd help pursue the case until the heat death of the universe.

Because Ralphie had them bamboozled at the beginning citing "Sagans" of dollars if they win.

No scam without a greedy mark.


Re:Not Dead Yet? (2)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260006)

Which also means massive clawback from breach of contract if BS&F backs out.

They quit and they have to refund their legal fees.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259092)

I was actually gonna ask the same question... This story relates to two companies that I thought were long dead to be honest...

It's only been eight years (2)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259198)

Considering that scox's case was obviously meritless from day one, you can't expect the courts to move too fast.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259204)

Because Johnny Carson pays their gas bills.

Look for larry darryl and darryl (mcbride?)

Re:Not Dead Yet? (5, Informative)

nyet (19118) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259470)

Answer: BS&F are still hoping for brazillions back, even though SCOG is broke.

A better question is, where did all the money go anyway? Novell never got paid the money that SCOG owed them.

Answer: Delaware bankruptcy court (specifically Judge Gross in this case) is utterly corrupt and broken. They siphon money away from creditors and towards lawyers, making sure that ALL creditors get stiffed, until there is no money left.

Why do you think incorporating in Delaware is so popular?

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259946)

Since Novell had the benefit of a constructive trust, would somebody at SCO be personally liable for tortious conversion?

Re:Not Dead Yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37260888)

I would answer this, but I have no idea what "tortious conversion" is.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (3, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37261136)

Conversion is the tort of wrongfully disposing of someone else's property.

For example. If you loan someone your car, and they sell it, they have converted your car.

It's the civil version of embezzling.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

Drishmung (458368) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260082)

By 1842, the failure of the Chancery courts, wherein the substance of the litigants was entirely consumed by the legal system was recognized, and the system began to be reformed. The situation was dramatized by Charles Dickens in "Bleak House" []

Is it not a good thing that such abuses have been eliminated in these modern times?

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259900)

More importantly, if they do, why is it being wasted on lawyers instead of being paid out to creditors?

Particularly Novell which actually has a constructive trust on a large chunk of that money, which means that it actually belongs to Novell and is merely in SCO's custody.

Which means that SCO had no legal right to spend it in the first place and is therefore liable for tortious conversion.

Novell might consider *personally* suing whoever at SCO authorized the payments without first coughing up Novell's funds.

I'm also curious if the bankruptcy trustee has been negligent in its fiduciary duty to the creditors by allowing the bankruptcy estate to be diminished.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#37261262)

I would be curious to see what connections the SCO lawyers have. I can't help feel there was some embezlment going on. Basically carrying on a court case, that has no chance of winning, to channel a corporation's money into some black hole.

How come the stock holders didnt vote the CEO out of power?

What are we all missing? I would love to have some investigation performed into all this to identify the real crooks and what the real crime was.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259992)

They do not. They've sold off all assets. All that's left is a shell.

Personally, since helping to cover the case when it was SCO v Daimler-Chrysler in the Oakland County, MI District Court, I'm happy to see that it's played out to this end. We've known for years that SCO hasn't had a case since day one, and now this is the final nail in the coffin.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260640)

And why are they still paying their legal bills instead of coughing up Novell's constructive trust?

That money doesn't even belong to SCO to begin with, so they (and possibly the legal firm they are paying) would be hard pressed to justify it.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260756)

Just to waste it so Novell can't get it back?

Re:Not Dead Yet? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260828)

At this point I would put it on simple greed. The lawyers want to hog the kitty for themselves and are doing everything they can to milk SCO dry just to make sure NOBODY else gets anything, since a dollar going into a creditor's pocket is a dollar not going into theirs.

They probably know they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but since they made a deal to keep the case alive they may as well keep charging legal fees while they are at it.

Of course, considering that Microsoft was caught backdoor funding the whole thing, a bit of spite against Linux might not be out of place here either.

Deliberately violating Novell's constructive trust could however be seen as tortious conversion, and any bigwigs knowingly allowing it to happen may well be personally negligent in not stopping it, if not outright deliberately letting it fly.

If I were Novell I would start suing SCO's financial bosses individually. Maybe even the bankruptcy trustee as well if he was negligent in his duties as guardian of the bankruptcy estate.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37261412)

This is what happens when corporations are recognized as people. If CEO's and corporate officers had more liability, it wouldn't just be SCO in the coffin. It would be golden parachutes down the toilet.

Think about it, SCO loses - bye bye. So what? Darl was very well compensated by ruining the company for the benefit of Microsoft. It is not even gambling, because he had nothing to lose. He even tried to purchase the assets. If he got the Bernie Madoff treatment, corporations might get the hint.

They execute people for this kind of thing in China.

Re:Not Dead Yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37260160)

You don't think a certain big company worth billions of dollars and that's been butthurt about Linux since the mid-90s is funding SCO?

The horror... (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258808)

Does SCO even exist now? Do they have an office or any employees? Or is SCO the same as it ever was, a legal instrument for patent trolling?

I guess they were fairly innovative in their field (patent trolling), you can give them that much. Even evil can be exquisite.

The genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.

Re:The horror... (4, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258898)

Back in the day, they (and their predecessor companies) made good products. Caldera OpenLinux was one of the most user-friendly Linux distributions of the day, and the two flavors of SCO UNIX had a large customer base. There are still a fair number SCO UNIX customers left, but I would assume they're seriously evaluating their migration options.

That side of the business is now owned by an entity called Unxis, [] and I would guess the remainder of SCO itself is mainly to continue this lawsuit.

Re:The horror... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259480)

The SCO Group, AFAIK, is not Santa Cruz Operation(SCO). SCO did provide some products many years ago, but when I last looked at them 25 years ago they could not make a competitive case in the small bussiness arena competing against MS and Apple.The pricing was to compete against IBM, not against the new agile model based on redundant cheap hardware. Like MS now, they were a primary player, but not flexible enough to respond to new competition.

Never did anything with Caldera. It is clear that they SCO group, like the record labels, are trying to milk a relatively short term business model for as long as they can.

Re:The horror... (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259888)

I knew a couple of SCO developers in Utah County, Utah (yeah, the state is actually named after the county, to show how weird this universe can really get) where there was an honest attempt to make a legitimate business. There certainly were some pretty interesting products developed and they had a reasonable number of developers and engineers considering the markets they were pushing for.

And then came Microsoft and the people who got greedy within the company, where the rest as they say is history. It was when the developers were jumping ship early on that you knew the company was in trouble.

This was even after the "Santa Cruz Operation" buy-out. I'm just glad that I never got hired by them.

Re:The horror... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259920)

The SCO Group, AFAIK, is not Santa Cruz Operation(SCO).

They're not in almost precisely the same sense that AT&T is not AT&T Corporation -- different people wound up with the name rights and the software rights, the company was considered gone, but the undead pieces possessed their new owners and and made them merge/buy each other until the unholy entity was mostly reconstituted.

The only difference is AT&T was evil to begin with, while SCO only turned evil through this corporate necromancy.

Re:The horror... (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260518)

I have to disagree. In the mid 80s to mid 90s the case for UNIX, particularly SCO UNIX was particularly strong, and we typically 50% or less that the cost of a Novell or NT based network, especially if using dumb terminals. The problem was all the people who knew DOS couldn't figure out UNIX and would choose Novell or later, NT by default, even though it cost twice as much and ran half as fast and was half as reliable.

Re:The horror... (2)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260590)

Facts: Caldera purchased SCO, Inc. Life was good. Then investor Ralph Yarro pushed Caldera into a radical direction in 2002. First, most of SCO was spun off as Tarantella. Second, SCO was renamed the SCO Group and began trying to extort license revenue out of companies that used Linux.

It was bizarre. A near 100% reversal of direction. To date, no one, and I mean no one, from Ransom Love (former Caldera CEO) to Darl McBride (CEO pushed in by Yarro who displaced Love) can explain what happened. Up unitl 2002, Caldera had fought tooth and nail to get Linux into the enterprise (that is what their distribution was) and suddenly did an about face and started attacking Linux.

At this point, I'd love to hear the story of what cause the change in 2002.

Re:The horror... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37260052)

It was what, 1999 when you could get a Caldera LiveCD? I've got a phone that old, but man you should see the looks people give when I use it.

Follow the devs, follow the engineers, don't follow the corporate nameplates. If they're not paying research and development salaries, then they're not a tech company no matter what go-faster stripes you paint on them.

Re:The horror... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258900) = the worst corp web site I've seen easily this week, possibly this month or last year.

Re:The horror... (1)

BigDaveyL (1548821) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258954)

It's so 1995

Re:The horror... (2)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259514)

If you navigate to the 'press releases' section of their web site, its 404'd. That cant be a bad thing...

Re:The horror... (1)

Plombo (1914028) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258910)

You mean copyright trolling, not patent trolling.

Re:The horror... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260014)

Patents were never an issue in this case. SCO never held any that were relevant to the case. No, it's been about copyrights and who has the keys to the castle that would open up the litigation win treasure chest. Unfortunately for them, SCO has gasped its last.

Best quote of the article (5, Funny)

Meshach (578918) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258842)

Over SCO’s objection, the district court allowed Novell to show the jury a slide containing a quote from a BusinessWeek article referring to SCO as “The Most Hated Company in Tech.” (R. Vol. VIII at 2815; R. Vol. XIV at 5091).

From the PDF, Page 11

Re:Best quote of the article (2)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#37261008)

And it was allowed only because SCO's "expert witness" included damages from after the initial ruling in Novell's favor. Had the expert properly stopped his estimate as of the date of the initial ruling, Novell would have had no grounds to introduce this quote to contradict the expert testimony. So because of SCO's own mistake, we now have evidence in the trial record that SCO is "The Most Hated Company in Tech.". Classic.

Re:Best quote of the article (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#37261436)

Also it counters SCO's claim that because Novel claimed SCO didn't own Unix, SCO's reputation was damaged. The article as well other sources noted by the court confirmed that SCO's low standing the tech world had sunk more because of the hated Linux licensing program.

"Realistically"? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258848)

After years of this nonsense? Long after 99.99% of people could see that it was nonsense, including the courts? Since when have "realistic" evaluations of the legal case ever mattered to SCO's legal efforts? I expect it to go to the Supreme Court, and after that to various international courts. And maybe after that the interplanetary court.

The answer to "Will they try to appeal this to the Supreme Court?" can be found in the answer to the question: "What strategy will net the SCO lawyers the most money?"

Re:"Realistically"? (3, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258984)

The SCOTUS doesn't have to hear your case, they only take on cases with merit. Even if they do request this case to be heard, it has zero chance of actually happening. So they're done now. At least in the courtroom.

If anyone has them, I'd love to see some actual statistics of how many cases are presented and how many are heard, giving a percentage. (on the average, over the last few years, or even to see how the numbers change over the years) I bet they have a fairly low percentage of cases heard. (10%?)

Re:"Realistically"? (4, Informative)

rkfig (1016920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259082)

According to "The Court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases." So, roughly, just shy of 1%

Re:"Realistically"? (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259944)

The only reason why the Supremes would hear this case is to not only nail the coffin together for SCO, but to hammer home to the entire computer industry to never pull a stunt like this again and to basically do something ugly to the lawyers who put this case together in the first place and possibly go after the major shareholders and financiers of this whole endeavor and tell Novell "anything you wish will be granted".

Since Novell isn't really asking for much here other than purely money and a few legal trinkets, I don't see it getting to that level. Regardless, this is still going to be a precedent setting case on a number of levels, and it did solidify the legitimacy of the GPL in a number of ways where the legality of the GPL is no longer really in question. I call that a win for the good guys.

Re:"Realistically"? (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260966)

More to the point, the Supreme Court looks for cases with a constitutional question and prefers cases in which lower courts have disagreed. This has neither.

Re:"Realistically"? (4, Informative)

rjh (40933) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260814)

This is pretty close, but not quite accurate. SCOTUS takes cases principally according to:

  1. Issues of original jurisdiction (cases involving diplomats or ambassadors, or in which a state is a party). For these cases, SCOTUS is allowed, but not required, to be the trial court. In practice, only cases involving two states get this expedited original-jurisdiction treatment: everything else gets to go through normal federal channels.
  2. Statutes which expressly state they may be only heard by the Supreme Court (yes, there are a few)
  3. Cases in which two different appellate courts, applying the same SCOTUS precedents to similar cases, have reached different decisions

The first category is really astonishingly rare. The second is almost as much so. The third accounts for the overwhelming majority of SCOTUS's workload.

Note that SCOTUS really doesn't care if your case "has merit." No judge really does. A judge's job isn't to decide if your case has merit: that's the jury's job. A judge's job is to make sure the laws are applied fairly and without bias to both parties.

At the SCOTUS level, SCOTUS cares whether their precedents are creating confusion among the appellate courts. If two appellate courts come to two different readings of SCOTUS's precedents, then SCOTUS will generally hear a case so that their opinion can help bring clarity to the courts.

With respect to the number of cases heard per year, approximately 1 in 200 cases appealed to SCOTUS will be heard by the Court. The buck stops at the appellate level 99.5% of the time.

(Source: David R. Hansen, former Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. IANAL: I'm just reporting what he's said.)

Again? (3, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258858)

Realistically this is the end of the line for the case.

How many times have we heard that?

Re:Again? (3, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259072)

Too damn many.

I'll believe it's all over when SCO's articles of incorporation have been burnt, the ashes salted, placed in a silver box, surrounded by garlic and placed outside the courthouse of the eastern district of Texas as an example to other patent trolls. I'd also like a waiver on public indeceny laws to permit pissing on the box, but you have to draw the line somewhere...

Re:Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259342)

as an example to other patent trolls

Patents? This case was entirely a contract dispute about copyright transfer.

Re:Again? (3, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259350)

Except there are no patent claims in either Novell or IBM.

Re:Again? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259982)

You left out the part where we burn their headquarters to the ground and sow the Earth with salt to ensure that nothing ever grows there again.

Bless the rains? (0)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258862)

Did the court also bless the rains down in Africa?

Re:Bless the rains? (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259104)

They're saying it's the end of the case but I think we should just hold the line for now...

Rinse.. (2)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258874)

Rinse and repeat. Until dead.

Re:Rinse.. (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260028)

If a corporation is legally a person, when is it dead? This company is a zombie that has more lives than several dozen cats.

The whole case seems like an episode of Get a Life [] , where the main character dies in each episode only to come back to life in the next episode as if nothing happened. That pretty much defines SCO.

My question is more in terms of who has SCO stock certificates? Those are most certainly collector items now.

Realistically? (3, Insightful)

Blackeagle_Falcon (784253) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258886)

"Realistically this is the end of the line for the case."

SCO has not been realistic at any time during this case.

Re:Realistically? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260030)

Granted, but there's only so far you can (even unrealistically) pursue things. If SCOTUS doesn't pan out, where do you appeal next? The UN Human Rights Council? The Pope?

Re:Realistically? (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260676)

Sue the Supreme Court? Sue the American people for not supporting them (cue "Coupon: The Movie")!

Yeah, but since Novell's been bought by Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258966)

Or basically bought by Microsoft, the manipulators behind the scenes get to bury this particular poison dart and try a different weapon against free software.

tl;dr= In other words, Same crap,different day

Sing along, everyone: (3, Funny)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258988)

This is the lawsuit that doesn't end
Yes, it goes on and on my friend
Some people started litigating it not knowing what it was
And they`ll continue litigating it forever just because...

Oh no! What will the Lawyers do?! (1)

bengoerz (581218) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259032)

Without SCO to suck dry, the world's IP lawyers might just get bored and fire the first shots in the Technology Patent Armageddon.

Re:Oh no! What will the Lawyers do?! (1)

fostware (551290) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259410)

Or move to APPL?

Re:Oh no! What will the Lawyers do?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37260560)

What does Appell Pete Corp have to do with this?

Just when we thought it was dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259162)

George Romero will revive this company for another feature.

software patents (1, Insightful)

alienzed (732782) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259250)

really need to die.

Re:software patents (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37261122)

Uh, you do realize this case is about copyright contracts, not patents, right?

Why this went on so long (3, Interesting)

clemenstimpler (1472471) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259320)

The lawyers were paid upfront - so they may be forced to beat single bones of this skeleton to an en-banc-hearing or the Supreme Court. Both are dead ends.

I guess this charade will have taught Boies Schiller & Flexner that such arrangements are a bad deal. Larry Ellison will have to cough up money for every step he wants to go in Oracle vs. Google (maybe the best coming out of this case).

And, of course, the counterclaims of SCO vs. IBM may have to be dealt with.

Just one case (5, Funny)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259436)

This is just one case. There's still several other cases to be resolved: SCO v IBM, Red Hat v SCO, SCO v Autozone (or Daimler/Chrysler), and, of course, the upcoming SCO v Boies, et al, where SCO sues their own lawyers for not winning these unwinnable cases. :)

I'm also hoping to see SCO v Microsoft, where SCO sues Microsoft for not providing sufficient funds to slow the growth of Linux as agreed, and Microsoft countersues because SCO didn't achieve the success they promised with the initial round of funding.

Re:Just one case (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259968)

Actually, the results of the previous trial and this appeal clearly indicate that SCO never owned the copyrights and so never had standing to sue IBM. IBM should file for immediate dismissal for lack of standing and/or summary judgement in IBM's favor. I don't know as much about the Red Hat or Autozone cases, but those may fall into the same category.

SCO's stockholders and creditors should consider suing Darryl McBride and/or other officers responsible for pursuing this baseless litigation in breach of the fiduciary responsibilities. But only if any of them are left with enough assets to make it worth the fight.

Red Hat vs SCO (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260362)

Red Hat vs SCO, if I recall correctly, was an action brought by Red Hat *against* SCO - basically saying that SCO was making unfounded threats against Red Hat's customers, and interfering with their business (I might not have that exactly right, but I think it was something like that - essentially Red Hat was on offense, trying to get damages from SCO).

If anything, the fact that SCO never had the copyrights it was basing such threats against Red Hat's customers, strengthens Red Hat's case.

I just went back and found the very first filing by Red Hat which started the case, at Groklaw. Looks like I basically remembered it correctly: []

I see no reason the Red Hat case can't proceed full-speed ahead now. . . except for the fact that SCO has no money or assets left for Red Hat to collect. Did SCO ever even exit bankruptcy? I don't think RH vs SCO can proceed until such time as SCO exits bankruptcy, and if SCO gets liquidated, it can never proceed because there will be no SCO left to sue.

Re:Red Hat vs SCO (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260914)

You're partially correct, Red Hat vs SCO [] "On the 11th of October 2007 the case was closed with leave to reopen after the SCO group leaves Chapter 11 bankruptcy." However, first, SCO must emerge from bankruptcy. Given that there is no money to go after, I believe that case is dead.

SCO vs Autozone [] is already settled. "On October 22, 2009, Edward Cahn, SCO's Chapter 11 trustee, sought bankruptcy court approval for an agreement he reached with AutoZone. According to the court filings, the confidential settlement resolves all claims between SCO and AutoZone."

SCO vs Daimler-Chrysler [] was dismissed. "The parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal order on December 21, 2004. The case was dismissed without prejudice, but if SCO wishes to pursue the timeliness claim again, it must pay DaimlerChrysler's legal fees since August 9. On December 29, 2004, SCO filed a claim of appeal notice. On January 31, 2005, the claim of appeal was dismissed." I would say the chance of SCO paying Daimler-Chysler's legal fees in order to continue the suit are really close to zero.

In SCO vs IBM [] , the copyright violations should be dead as a result of the SCO vs Novell ruling. That still leaves the breach of contract claims. So this one might not be dead yet.

Re:Just one case (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260064)

I totally forgot about SCO vs. Autozone. Yeah, the zombie is going to continue to crawl out of the ground for some time to come.

Perhaps SCOTUS will simply merge all of the cases together and tell SCO to die once and for all. Somehow I doubt it.

Re:Just one case (1)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260604)

I totally forgot about SCO vs. Autozone. Yeah, the zombie is going to continue to crawl out of the ground for some time to come.

Perhaps SCOTUS will simply merge all of the cases together and tell SCO to die once and for all. Somehow I doubt it.

The SCO v Autozone case was settled confidentially out of court in 2009 after SCO had entered bankruptcy.

Ha! (4, Funny)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259444)

Realistically this is the end of the line for the case.

You must be new here.

$699 please (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259446)

You cock-smoking teabaggers

Closure needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259460)

I realize that McBride long ago moved on, yet I feel many would feel a sense of closure if he were to slip in the shower or contract something both painful and fatal.

In toto (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259566)

Huh, I always thought lawyers that said "in toto" were just saying "in total" with a folksy accent.

Re:In toto (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260668)

Nah, it's just fancy lawyer talk for Dorothy's dog ate it.

Re:In toto (1)

SIGBUS (8236) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260900)

Or flushed it down a toilet [] .

Yeah right. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259616)

Realistically this is the end of the line for the case.

Realistically, this is also the year for Linux on the desktop.

Career Opportunity (1)

tiny69 (34486) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259640)

Me, Inc is hiring.

who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259854)

SCO blah blah blah blah blah blah OMG. Just stop. Seriously.

Sued into oblivion... (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259896)

Yes, SCO has, in effect, sued their own business into bankruptcy. That's a pretty amazing feat considering they never sued themselves. Slow death by initiating baseless litigation.

Still claiming ownership though. (4, Interesting)

pionzypher (886253) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260204)

Seriously.... at what point do they have to remove this shit [] from their site?

SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates back to 1969, when the UNIX System was created at AT&T's Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System.

In slow motion. (1)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260286)

It's like watching a star falling through the event horizon of a black hole.

Darl (1)

Morky (577776) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260322)

SCO could have been Red Hat. They were THE Intel UNIX, and could have moved their huge, loyal base to Linux, and continued to grow it. They even had large hardware vendors supporting their OS when Linux was still a baby. Unfortunately, they decided to hire a short-sighted, litigious CEO. Good night, SCO. Good riddance, Darl.

Is this a Monty Python skit?? (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 3 years ago | (#37260620)

This whole SCO drama reminds me of that Monty Python skit where these two guys are fighting and one keeps whacking off limbs of the other guy and the limbless guy just keeps on taunting the other guy with the sword... Best entertainment around...

Re:Is this a Monty Python skit?? (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#37261026)

That you didn't refer to it as the Black Knight scene from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is grounds for revoking your nerd credentials.

bankruptcy trustee's role in theft! (3, Interesting)

anwyn (266338) | more than 3 years ago | (#37261350)

The most outrageous thing about this whole fiassco is the bankruptcy's trustee's complicity in SCO's theft. This is not money that SCO owes Novell. This is money that never was SCO's in the first place. Courts have ruled it was "converted" which means stolen. Yet the backruptcy trustee corruptly continues to hold and spend Novell's money. This makes him complicit in that theft.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?