×

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 Zombie Creaks Into Motion Again

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the senile-courtroom-opponent dept.

IBM 208

phands writes "SCO has moved to partially reopen their 10 year old lawsuit against IBM. Unbelievable! Details at Groklaw." From the article, quoting SCO's filing: "SCO respectfully requests that the Court rule on IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Unfair Competition Claim (SCO’s Sixth Cause of Action), dated September 25, 2006 (Docket No. 782), which motion is directed at the Project Monterey Claim, and IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Interference Claims (SCO’s Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action), dated September 25, 2006 (Docket No. 783), which motion is directed at the Tortious Interference Claims."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

208 comments

License fee (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957714)

Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fees you cock-smoking teabaggers!

Re:License fee (1, Troll)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958136)

I'm pretty sure that cock-smoking teabaggers only run Windows. Them other OSes be soshulist inventshuns.

Re:License fee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958406)

Interesting, most of the cock-smokers I know use mac. Perhaps that's because not too many cock-smokers are actually members of the tea party.

On behalf of the cock-smokers, I insist you stop associating them with the tea party - it does more harm to the image of cock-smokers than it does to the tea partiers.

Re:License fee (0)

Taty'sEyes (2373326) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959320)

I'm pretty sure you are slamming the tea party, a philosophy I fully support, in your troll. Just to let you know, I use OpenSuSE 11.4 (been using SuSE since '97) and try my best not to use any Microsoft product. Just so you know. Have a great liberal day!

I tried, scox would not let me (2)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959114)

I called scox two times, a few months apart, and asked to be sent an invoice. Scox refused to do so.

The first time I called, scox seemed bewildered that anybody would even call about it.

Herman Cain's dong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957738)

What does this have to do with some low-swinging brotha gettin' some? By hook or by crook?

Re:Herman Cain's dong (1, Insightful)

The Askylist (2488908) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959150)

May I just say that from a transatlantic perspective, it's at least good to have someone with successful business experience and no political axe to grind aiming for the Whitehouse. The current bloke you have only understands politics, and hasn't got a chance of helping the US out of recession.

That they both are of a darker hue than I am makes not a jot of difference.

SCO = Herpes (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957758)

SCO keeps coming back just like herpes. How is it that they can continue to pay lawyers (or find fools greedy enough) to fund their 'Hail Marry' legal crap?

Re:SCO = Herpes (5, Informative)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957848)

How is it that they can continue to pay lawyers

The company is nothing but lawyers. They stopped being a tech company a long time ago. As long as a lawyer has not been beheaded/disbarred it will keep finding ways to troll. "It" being the only non-vulgar way I can think of to describe a lawyer.

Re:SCO = Herpes (1)

Troy Baer (1395) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958040)

As long as a lawyer has not been beheaded/disbarred it will keep finding ways to troll.

My vote is for "beheaded" in this case.

Re:SCO = Herpes (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958148)

I think you're being hasty. I say we bury him alive and see if he rises from the dead. Worst case scenario you then have to behead him.

Re:SCO = Herpes (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958330)

Hasty? I'm one who dislikes doing a job two or three times. Let's get it done right the first time. Shoot it through the heart with a silver bullet, drive a wooden stake through it's heart - following the path of the bullet, if you like, behead it, then leave it lying in the sun for most of a day, then bury it with a bouquet of garlic and other fragrant herbs. The head we removed earlier should be burned - I'm not sure if there's a prescribed formula for the fire, or if we can just kick the head into any old furnace.

Or, we could just nuke from orbit.

Re:SCO = Herpes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958658)

it's the only way to be sure.

Re:SCO = Herpes (4, Funny)

EvilAlphonso (809413) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958714)

drive a wooden stake through it's heart

That part would be a problem... we're talking about a lawyer here...

Re:SCO = Herpes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37959126)

They just need to be disbarred for wasting judges time and public money. That will fix them.

Re:SCO = Herpes (4, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958080)

Isn't what happening in the US right now similar to situations where some animals kills their own offspring in order to survive themselves?

But when that happens it can also be damaging to the future survival since what's culled may actually have a better opportunity and be better adapted to survival in the long run.

Being a patent troll is not that different from being a cannibal.

Re:SCO = Herpes (4, Insightful)

femtoguy (751223) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958284)

As a person living in Utah, I can attest that there is an inordinate number of out of work lawyers here. Not only that, we have a lot of lawyers here that are very entrepreneurial. That is a very bad combination, and there are lots of silly legal things happening here. So, if your choices are to take on a potentially hopeless law suit or collect up shopping carts at Walmart, stupid law suits don't look to bad.

Re:SCO = Herpes (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959174)

You know, every other profession adds value to society.

Your posts proves that they only harm and when they are out of work they figure out ways to harm people entrepreneurial and all of course. Other people start businesses that serve society.

Seriously it would serve society better if they got paid for life not to work

Re:SCO = Herpes (1)

Codifex Maximus (639) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958552)

>> 4,143,077 Texans live in poverty. 1,655,085 of them are children. http://www.census.gov/

The other some odd 2,487,922 are paying Texas traffic ticket SURCHARGES.

Re:SCO = Herpes (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957904)

How is it that they can continue to pay lawyers (or find fools greedy enough) to fund their 'Hail Marry' legal crap?

The general belief is a certain company whose popular acronym starts with an "M" and ends with an "S"...

Re:SCO = Herpes (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958368)

I hope they turn this saga into a horror movie. This is like the corpse still banging on the cofffin cask door, even when sprinkled with holy water, surrounded by crucifixes, shot with silver bullets, packed in with garlic and exorcised by an entire busload of priests working shifts 24/7.

Re:SCO = Herpes (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958758)

Because when this whole fiaSCO started, they paid a lump sump to their attorneys to cover the ENTIRE suit through all appeals.

They're NOT paying their attorneys, they've already been paid.

Because they were too busy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957760)

Filed November 4th? I guess they were too busy collecting candy on Halloween. I bet they had fun in their zombie costumes frightening small children and Linux users.

Re:Because they were too busy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958066)

Linux users haven't been frightened by SCO for nearly a decade. If they ever were.

Re:Because they were too busy? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958216)

There was a period early on where the lawsuits certainly spooked people, but after it became quite clear that SCO actually had nothing, it became more a mix of incredulity and frustration, in large part that a legal system would actually allow a complainant who had no evidence or basis for their claims could actually keep a case going in the courts for years.

Reminds me of the old Russian bonds (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957770)

They are still traded, believe it or not. The bonds issued by the old Czarist regime from almost a century ago. Every time it seems like Russia might ponder thinking about picking them up and honoring them, their value goes up. Mind you, from zero to near zero, but still.

I guess SCO is aiming for the same gambit.

Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958194)

Somebody found some old paper bonds from the Weimar Republic a few years ago and found investors who were willing to invest in them in the hope that Germany might honor them. I think Germany had already paid them off and they were worthless or something like that, but I'm sure people will continue buying and selling them anyway.

Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958426)

I would buy any quantity of bonds at 0 if I had even the remotest chance of them picking up to near-zero (which you say actually happens) -- at which I would immediately sell. Please tell me more.

Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958596)

It wouldn't be "zero to near zero", because the last guy will have been thinking the same as you. What you'd be hoping for is "near zero" moving to "slightly less near zero".

Re:Reminds me of the old Russian bonds (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958746)

I would buy any quantity of bonds at 0 if I had even the remotest chance of them picking up to near-zero

Don't forget transaction costs.

Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (2)

evanism (600676) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957814)

In 100 years when Linux rules all, the name SCO will be uttered in hushed tones like an unmentionably profane word, told to naughty children by mothers to warn them against Bad Things, and the generic name for products that burned into a black hole of public hatred... "did you see that BeegleSearch did a SCO?".

Time for the cricket bat to put this zombie down for good.

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (4, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957846)

In 100 years when Linux rules all,

Dude I don't normally say this, but today I have a real bad back-ache and I'm in a lot of pain. So could you give me some of what you're smoking?

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958362)

If you have a smartphone it runs Linux. If you use a browser then you've been served up pages from a Linux server.

But yeah, if you work for some shitty company or other you might have to use a Windows pc at some point, and if you're like a user or something then you might have a Windows pc at home on some shitty laptop which keeps overheating and is no use for games.

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958464)

Actually I have a desktop that boots debian, ubuntu and windows 7. For some reason I always use Windows 7, except when I do my online banking. Why? Because you simply cannot argue with 90-odd percent market share. All the new drivers come out for Windows 7 first. All the new software is supported for Windows 7 first. I don't have to fiddle with the command line. I don't have to download packages. I don't have to be insulted on random websites when I ask what apparently are extremely stupid questions because I can't seem to get my hardware to work despite everyone swearing how easy it is.

The time for rolling up my sleeves and fiddling around with bits of computer or OS are gone. I am too old. I enjoyed it when I was young, but it belongs in the past. Just like I used to swear by manual transmissions, I've had an automatic now for years and I love it. I'm not a kid anymore. So, while I agree that linux has its niche, linux will never "rule all" unless they undergo a fundamental design change from a specialist OS to a mass market OS. But if that happens it will just stop being linux.

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (1)

EvilAlphonso (809413) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958856)

Funnily enough, I have the exact opposite experience...

I was given a windows-only mp3 player and have never been able to sync it with Windows. I plug it in, windows then tells me I need to install drivers so I install them. It then tells me to reboot, so I reboot. I launch WMP, then after clicking all over the place I finally find the device to try and sync it with some playlists. At the end of the sync, WMP tells me "there was an error please try again later". I check the player, nothing on it... the damned thing spent a good 20 minutes churning away to do nothing. I plug it into a Linux box, a pop-up comes and asks me if I prefer to use Rythmbox or AmaroK to manage the player. It syncs no problem. After asking on forums, I'm told I must be some kind of moron or my windows installation has a serious problem (or both) as those devices are plug-and-play. Or maybe the device is defective... but it works 100% fine with Linux even tho it is a windows-only mp3 player. So I try on another machine, same result. A third machine with a more recent installation of windows, same result. A VM with a fresh installation of windows and all patches applied... same result.

Last week, I bought a random cheapo no-name USB wireless stick. I plugged it on my Linux box and it worked directly. Windows required me to install drivers.

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (1)

Loosifur (954968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958518)

Are you talking about the smartphone that I have to pull the battery out of every day or so because it hung while getting a text message and email at the same time? And the Windows PC that I'm currently playing Battlefield 3 on, that I haven't had to restart in a week? 'Cause if that's the comparison, you just sold me against Linux. Which is weird, because I dual boot.

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958734)

Does that make you bi(OS)?

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957944)

In 100 years when Linux rules all, the name SCO will be uttered in hushed tones like an unmentionably profane word, told to naughty children by mothers to warn them against Bad Things, and the generic name for products that burned into a black hole of public hatred... "did you see that BeegleSearch did a SCO?".

Time for the cricket bat to put this zombie down for good.

"You mean Valdemort?"

"Shhh!"

No doubt your right. Sort of a negative take on "Doing an Apple."

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958184)

I'm pretty sure saying SCOX at school can get you that reaction right now.

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37959010)

In 100 years when Linux rules all, the name SCO will be uttered in hushed tones like an unmentionably profane word, told to naughty children by mothers to warn them against Bad Things, and the generic name for products that burned into a black hole of public hatred... "did you see that BeegleSearch did a SCO?".

Time for the cricket bat to put this zombie down for good.

Naw. SCO will be a term of derision, used to brand idiots with dumb ideas.

Re:Keep moaning and looking for brains SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37959330)

Why would you hit a bat with a cricket or a cricket with a bat? Utter nonsense. If you want to hit something with something else, it's best to use something designed for hitting, like a baseball bat or golf club. Or use an actual club-club. A chunk of a tree in the shape of the top 99% of an exclamation mark, like this one !

Zombies versus Nazgul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957816)

New book, to be followed by the B-movie.

Now I believe it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957818)

Our legal system is truly broken.

Re:Now I believe it. (2)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957920)

Our legal system is truly broken.

Broken? I don't know: we give everyone a chance to have their day in court ... multiple chances even. You don't want justice (or whatever passes for it nowadays) to be too swift. But you're right: SCO had their chance, they blew it (because they were wrong) and they should just go away. Fact is, had they been left to themselves, they'd have been cremated years ago. The problem is, there are too many powerful entities (Gates, Ballmer, Hell & Co, for one) who see a strategic advantage in continually resurrecting this particular corpse.

I'm sure the Nazgûl are probably thinking "Oh, please. Not again!" right about now.

Re:Now I believe it. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958240)

For me it demonstrates a serious problem, in that a complainant who has no evidence to back up their claims is permitted literally years to gobble up time. There should be a mandatory one week preliminary hearing in such a case where both sides have to provide a reasonably large body of their evidence, and if they cannot, the case is dismissed. If you have evidence, you should be able to summarize it in the space of a week.

Re:Now I believe it. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958348)

The problem is, there are too many powerful entities (Gates, Ballmer, Hell & Co, for one) who see a strategic advantage in continually resurrecting this particular corpse.

The McBride of Frankenstein? :)

Re:Now I believe it. (2)

ari_j (90255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958002)

You believe that our legal system is broken, based on what? Reading even just the introductory paragraphs of SCO's brief on its motion to reopen the case, you will see that the judge ruled in closing the case that "When the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its decision in the Novell litigation (No. 10-4122), either party may move the court to re-open the case." SCO is doing exactly what the judge ordered it to do. Groklaw and Slashdot may sensationalize this all they want, but don't let two sensationalist, biased websites convince you that the legal system is broken.

A little more understanding will help, as well. The court in SCO v. IBM did not rule on IBM's motions for summary judgment, by which SCO's claims would be extinguished. It chose not to rule on them until the Novell case was finally decided, on appeal or otherwise. SCO is asking for the court to rule on IBM's motions for summary judgment. It of course wants them to be denied, but how does it prove to you that our legal system broken when someone asks a judge to consider the merits of the opposing party's motions (which has not been done yet) and does exactly what the judge ordered them to do, moving to reopen the case after a related case was over with?

This isn't a case where someone has completely and finally lost and keeps scrounging up cash to pay lawyers to fight. It only looks like that because the people reporting on it haven't bothered to read and understand what is going on before telling you what is going on.

Re:Now I believe it. (2)

Grave (8234) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958192)

You're missing the point. Lawyers do that all the time because they get caught up in technicalities, and it's why they are so despised. Back away from the case, look at it objectively, and you can see that the legal frameworks surrounding patent and copyright are fundamentally broken. Laws are supposed to come into existence because of a fundamental need to protect. When they become subverted and abused, like the entire "intellectual property" industry has done, they start damaging far more than protecting. In the same way that the First Amendment does not protect you yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, or threatening to kill someone, patent and copyright law should not protect trolls or obvious implementations.

Your argument largely consists of "this is legal", and while that may be true, that was not the point of the parent post. The point of the parent post was that for this nonsense to continue provides evidence of a fundamentally broken system because it has been many many years, and this case has been dealt setback after setback, yet it's not done. If the system is so overly complex and backlogged that it takes, what, almost a decade for this sort of thing to be resolved, that is a massive problem.

Linus's view on the scox-scam (5, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957834)

In a recent interview, Linus expresses his opinions on patents and copyrights and made the following remark about SCO and the US justice system

"SCO was a classic example of that. Where they tried to use copyrights, which turned out to be completely bogus in so many ways, and made it into a nasty legal battle. They lost badly. What was irritating about the whole thing, as an insider knowing about what they claimed was completely bogus, was that it took them 10 years to lose. It is scary. 10 years! I don't know how many hundreds and millions of dollars IBM and Novell spent on fighting completely bogus crap stuff; fighting lawsuits that made no sense. Literally it made no sense what so ever. To the point that it ended up turning out that they did not even own the copyrights that they were claiming, never mind the copyrights they were claiming weren't actually true. Christ what a chaos!"

http://www.muktware.com/news/2866

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958042)

No one gives a fuck what Linus says. He's a filthy sack of shit and everyone knows it.

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958140)

Whatever you say, Mr. Stallman.

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958434)

If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (2)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958504)

AFAICT "not having a case" is absolutely no barrier to using the US legal system to its fullest extent.

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958542)

If you're willing to lie, cheat and steal, no legal system is a barrier to "not having a case".

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958526)

SCO would not tell them *what* copyrights they allegedly had, or what code was allegedly infringing! Once they finally did, Novel was pretty fast in telling SCO to STFU (in nice legalese). Of course, that was years again, and SCO won't ever give up. Apparently not even bankruptcy has stopped them.

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (3, Insightful)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958656)

Because they can't tell them to jump off a cliff. They have to tell the judge to tell them to jump off a cliff. And for that to happen, you have to persuade the judge that you're right. And the SCO lawyers are trying to persuade him that they're right instead. And the judge doesn't know the technicalities that well, and is forced to address every single point, one at a time, letting both sides have a fair crack at persuading him in intricate technical and legal detail for every one of 100s and 100s of points. And then even when he's made his mind up on any given batch of points, an appeal might be called and another judge will need to do the exact same thing.

That's what takes 10 torturous, expensive years.

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958840)

If the legal teams that IBM & Novell hired were any good (IANAL), why didn't they just look up the copyrights, see SCO had no grounds, and then tell the guys to go jump off a cliff?

There was a dispute over whether or not the material in question was protected by copyright. There was a separate dispute of whether or not the copyright had transferred to SCO.

SCO was making claims to a broad range of material--much of which they never disclosed publicy. The first issue had to do with BSD and whether or not all of the claimed material had transferred to the public domain.

The second issue had to do with a contract between SCO and Novell. Novell claims SCO was acting as an agent to sell Unix licenses. SCO claims the contract granted them the copyright.

So, simply looking up the copyright was not sufficient. The material was protected by copyright at one time and it could be traced to Novell as SCO had claimed.

SCO was also making other claims against IBM regarding breach of contract in disclosing trade secrets and disclosing material that SCO had personally written.

Re:Linus's view on the scox-scam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958902)

It wasn't at all clear who owned the copyrights that SCO claimed had been infringed. (The US government keeps a register of copyrights and who owns them, but it's no longer compulsory for copyright owners to inform the government of new or transferred copyrights.) Novell sold their UNIX business to SCO, but the contract didn't transfer everything, and it was worded in such a way that it wasn't clear exactly what was being transferred. What SCO thought they were buying wasn't what Novell thought they were selling.

So SCO and Novell had to fight in court to figure out who owned the UNIX copyrights. Once the judge ruled that Novell still owned them, SCO's other cases should've collapsed immediately, but their lawyers were (are?) very good at delays and diversionary tactics. SCO's cases will be studied in law schools for decades to come, as examples of how to keep a case going with the flimsiest of evidence...

How do you kill a zombie? (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957860)

Shotgun blast to the head, right? But what kind of shotgun do you use for a corporation?

Re:How do you kill a zombie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957886)

Shotgun blast to the head, right? But what kind of shotgun do you use for a corporation?

Atomic.

Re:How do you kill a zombie? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957980)

It's the only way to be sure.

Even if SCO had the best *nix in the world... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957882)

it wouldn't be worth it for anyone to do business with them. They have no one to blame for all the bad press they've gotten themselves.

It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (4, Informative)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957894)

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Microsoft financed the entire scam. And doesn't it fit the MS MO perfectly? MS is always abusing the legal system to hurt it's competition.

It also fit's the MS MO to pull these legal system scams by proxie. A US federal judge once accused MS of using "Tonya Harding" tactics. At least somebody in the US justice system gets it.

Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958070)

"Microsoft financed the entire scam"

Citation needed please....

Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958126)

go to groklaw. Do you really think they purchased sco licenseing because they felt it was needed. put on your reality glasses

Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958500)

There is a lot of speculation on many sites about Microsoft being the financier but AFAIK there is NO PROOF.

hence

Citation Needed.

and

Where's the Beef (to borrow a phrase from a US Election)

Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958278)

Microsoft and Sun. The both funded SCO using the same man behind the scene technique.

Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (1)

EvilAlphonso (809413) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958904)

This... I fail to understand how the co-creator of SysVr4 would need to pay SCO a license in relation to the x86 version of their OS.

Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (2)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958996)

Because Sun was schizophrenia. Sun loved linux, then sun hated linux, then sun claimed to own linux. At one point McNealy said something like: "of course we are pleased to own the only legal version of linux." Soon afterwards, Novell made the same claim about SuSe. The scammers want to say that only their version of linux is legal because it has been blessed by Microsoft.

Classic extortion: pay us not to sue you, or your customers; then you can say you have the only legal version. MS is still pulling the same scam all over the place.

Re:It's not really scox, it's Microsoft (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959206)

In fact, to support GP's contention, Sun even bought Interactive Unix, so there was no reason for them to pay SCO squat. Later, they did buy Tarantella from them.

Actually MS legitimized slapping lic. fee on Linux (1)

Burz (138833) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958974)

With all the license fees MS are collecting for Android, MS was able to do directly what they were unable to do via SCO. This is about the SCO henchmen getting their cut after MS finally found an M.O. that worked.

Re:Actually MS legitimized slapping lic. fee on Li (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37959118)

I don't understand why anyone sane would pay Microsoft one cent for using Android.

MS simply has nothing on that system. It's a signal of how broken the system is. If you are a big enough bully, you can get paid for other people's work!

And that is scary.

It was all fun and stuff... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957898)

but now it's time to KILL IT WITH FIRE!

Did Larry Ellison buy SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957964)

This sounds like the latest installment of the Oracle horror movie. ...and the captcha word is "anarchic"

SCO have hired a superstar attorney for their case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37957984)

Jack Thompson will argue that Rogue turned thousands of teenagers into serial killers.

Re:SCO have hired a superstar attorney for their c (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958740)

Jack Thompson is not allowed to practice law anymore so it will be interesting to watch if they did.

Oh goodie a car analogy (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37957992)

Siblings are using their mom's old car. She doesn't care what any of them do with it. The youngest used it to sell and deliver pizza. His older brother let his friends use it to deliver free pizza in return for free pizza and free recipes. The youngest complained to dad. Dad tells him to GFY. So he complains again, and again, and again. If we are lucky we will get to watch dad beating the shit out of him on youtube.

What it really means ... (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958068)

... is that Cahn (the trustee) found there was still some loose change floating around, and he can continue to grind out trustee fees by demanding BSF continue to litigate for free as per the agreement.

Not that anyone else even cares any more. Even if SCO were to somehow win everything they ask for in some parallel universe, it wouldn't affect anyone outside the USofA, and there's enough connectivity now that all the data centers running linux could just move north and south of the borders.

So who would that leave? Pretty much nobody.

SCO resulted in some good (3, Insightful)

Henriok (6762) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958156)

The whole SCO story isn't all bad, perhaps not bad at all. It has resulted in some pretty important stuff like auditing the Linux code for copyrighted stuff, keeping developers and contributors honest to the code, and really putting these legal issues to test so the rules are clear and hardening Linux while showing that it is a serious player and that large companies can get involved. Linux as a project is absolutely better off for it. Hard times makes does that to stuff, if it doesn't kill you. I thing the battling with Apple will result in the same thing: Less copying/imitating/plagiarism and more innovating. That's what we want, isn't it? New great products, not more of the same?

Re:SCO resulted in some good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958540)

True. I would however enjoy seeing McBride drown in a vat of piss.

Re:SCO resulted in some good (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959012)

Way more bad than good, IMO. Now, Microsoft used their lessons from the scox-scam to file bogus IP lawsuits all over the place. It's practically all MS does anymore. Bogus lawsuits work, they work like all hell.

Re:SCO resulted in some good (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959160)

It also resulted in no GPL software on the network polices of businesses. Fortune 500 companies have got rid of Linux and switched to Windows to be sox compliant as GPL is viewed as viral. There is even a bank that uses a proprietary old SSH because the BSD OpenSSH is considered GPL and therefore owned by SCO.

Gee, thanks SCO. ... and thanks MS for funding it through Baystar to hide its fud.

Lawyers scare people and legal FUD and lawsuits are very effective. Just look at Samsung and its Galaxy Tab? Even if Samsung wins 5 years from now Apple will be a monopoly by then and no one will be able to get parts as Apple will have so much power over suppliers.

Grasping at straws and nitpicking at details (5, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37958506)

The new round of SCO claims is more laughable than the original claims. These new claims deal with the ill-fated Project Monterrey.

Way back in the late 1990s, Project Monterrey was an effort to bring a single Unix that ran on 32-bit and 64-bit. It was supposed to run on POWER, PowerPC, x86 and Itanium. IBM would work on the PowerPC part, Sequent was supposed to bring in multi-processor support, and Santa Cruz would work on IA-32. Intel would help develop Itanium support. The project became large and unwieldy at the same time Linux started gaining traction. IBM bought Sequent in 1999. IBM seeing that the future was Linux and not Project Monterrey declared the project dead in 2000 but not before making all the contributions they felt necessary to complete their end. Itanium was delayed and thus never got much traction. Santa Cruz was bought out by Caldera in 2000 and renamed themselves SCO.

As part of the agreement, all the partners would share in any development efforts. According to SCO, IBM took the Project Monterrey parts and put it in Linux. I think they may even allege they took the Santa Cruz parts. They also accuse IBM of interfering with their efforts in Project Monterrey.

Unfortunately for SCO, there isn't much evidence to support them. Project Monterrey failed because Linux was a far more attractive project with more support and more partners. Project Monterrey would at best be a niche platform especially since Itanium never took off. IBM only sold a few dozen licenses from the project where they normally sell hundreds of thousands of licenses.

Also there is no evidence that IBM took any part of PM and contributed to Linux much less Santa Cruz parts. Again SCO is vague about what parts but SMP, NUMA, and JFS are possible candidates. However all these predate PM with SMP and NUMA coming from Sequent and JFS coming from IBM's OS/2 efforts. The disagreement if the parts don't involve these revolve whether the PM license allowed IBM to take. SCO first has to identify the parts and then place them as originating from their part of PM.

To show how misguided SCO's claims are they have this bit.

The fact that Novell waived those contract claims years after the disclosures started does not diminish the impropriety of the disclosures or the damage they caused to SCO.

In laymen's terms, SCO says just because Novell waived any IBM transgression in 2003, that doesn't SCO wasn't hurt when IBM transgressed on Novell's rights. So SCO is forgetting again the fact that SCO never owned the copyrights so they absolutely no complaint in the matter between IBM and Novell. Only Novell does and they waived it. It doesn't matter when as SCO is not a party to it.

Indeed, insofar as IBM requires the waiver to avoid liability for breach of contract, Novell's waiver only highlights the wrongfulness of IBM's conduct. In addition, the Tortious Interference Claims are also based on IBM's disclosure of confidential UnixWare technologies that SCO developed after 1995 and that are unrelated to IBM's AT&T licensing agreements for UNIX.

SCO tries to imply that IBM may have transgressed on Novell thus they are likely to transgress on their claims. The problem is that SCO never had any proof that IBM transgressed on Novell at all. Novell never considered what IBM did to be a transgression. Also any transgression IBM did to SCO must be proved. They keep forgetting the "proof" part.

Scox-scam continues to be a great success for MS (5, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959056)

The idea of the scox-scam was never to win a jury verdict. Nor was the idea to collect fees for Linux (I called twice, and asked to be invoiced, scox refused to do so).

The idea behind the scox-scam was to smear linux, and intimidate some people away from using linux, and to scare some companies away from contributing to linux.

Think about it: why did scox (really Microsoft) sue IBM? Why not redhat? IBM is not even have a linux distribution. The reason is: IBM had just contributed a file system to Linux. And Microsoft wants other companies to know that if they contribute to Linux, they better be ready to spend $100 million defending that decision. I would bet this tactic actually worked.

Follow the money. Who stands to benefit from smearing Linux? Caldera/Scox was a linux company. But scox made a lot more $$ accepting MS loot, than from trying to sell Linux.

SCO's sentence should be 'Work on Itanium'!!! (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37959340)

Along the lines of George Costanza's script where a guilty party was sentenced by a judge to be a butler, the judge in this case should sentence SCO or UnXis to complete Monterrey on just the Itanium. After all, everybody has been deserting that platform in droves, just like they've been deserting SCO, so SCO should be asked to port every piece of software they own - SCO OSE, Unixware, Monterrey, Vision and everything else - to the Itanium. In fact, sentence them to developing software for only Itanium all their lives. So that the platform, instead of being restricted to just HP/UX and Debian, will get another Unix to run on it. Oh, and make sure it's all native EPIC code - no x86 emulation or anything of that sort.

I can't think of a more fitting punishment for SCO

Memoirs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37958914)

By Richard M. Nixon

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...