×

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 vs. IBM Trial Back On Again

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the it-just-goes-on-and-on-my-friends dept.

IBM 232

D___Breath writes "The lawsuit SCO started years ago against IBM (but really against Linux) is back on again. SCO first filed this clue-challenged lawsuit in March 2003. SCO claimed Linux was contaminated with code IBM stole from UNIX and that it was impossible to remove the infringement. Therefore, said SCO, all Linux users owe SCO a license fee of $1399 per cpu — but since SCO are such great guys, for a limited time, you can pay only $699 per CPU for your dirty, infringing copy of Linux. Of course, Novell claimed and later proved in court that SCO doesn't even own the copyrights on UNIX that it is suing over. IBM claims there is no infringing code in Linux. SCO never provided evidence of the massive infringement it claimed existed. The court ordered SCO three times to produce its evidence, twice extending the deadline, until it set a 'final' deadline of Dec 22, 2005 — which came and went — with SCO producing nothing but a lot of hand waving. In the meantime, SCO filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2007 because it was being beaten up in court so badly with the court going against SCO."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

232 comments

It's Microsoft (2, Insightful)

Harry Nelson (2575925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075575)

Like the article states, SCO is related to Microsoft. This is direct attack against Linux.

Re:It's Microsoft (-1, Offtopic)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075683)

It's too bad we can only go to -1. Sometimes I wish we could give a negative notion of - just to feel good about nominating super-trolls.

Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075797)

"Mr. Kenge," said Allan, appearing enlightened all in a moment. "Excuse me, our time presses. Do I understand that the whole estate is found to have been absorbed in costs?" "Hem! I believe so," returned Mr. Kenge. "Mr. Vholes, what do YOU say?" "I believe so," said Mr. Vholes. "And that thus the suit lapses and melts away?" "Probably," returned Mr. Kenge. "Mr. Vholes?" "Probably," said Mr. Vholes.

Re:It's Microsoft (2)

u38cg (607297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075801)

I don't know. I feel rather sentimental about this whole sorry affair, since I installed Linux for the first time around two weeks before it all kicked off. Happy times.

Re:It's Microsoft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075911)

I'm so disappointed the frist psot said nothing about cocksmoking teabaggers.
Oh, wait--it said "Microsoft". Never mind.

Apparently (5, Funny)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075603)

nuking from orbit IS the only way to be sure...

Re:Apparently (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075903)

nuking from orbit IS the only way to be sure...

Harms the environment. Perhaps someone can distill Intellect and inject it into a few heads.

Re:Apparently (1)

Like2Byte (542992) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076063)

nuking from orbit IS the only way to be sure...

Harms the environment. Perhaps someone can distill Intellect and inject it into a few heads.

Burke? Is that you?

Re:Apparently (4, Funny)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076173)

A few square kilometers of Utah is a small price to pay....

Re:Apparently (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076557)

Of course as SCO is a Delaware corporation you really meant a several dozen square miles of Deleware right?

Re:Apparently (5, Informative)

Xibby (232218) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076777)

What is the obsession with nuking from orbit? If you're in orbit, a kinetic projectile of sufficient mass will get the job done. No nuclear materials, or any sort of intelligence on the projectile is needed. A sufficiently massive chunk of iron at sufficient velocity will get the job done.

Re:Apparently (3, Funny)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076787)

Hey, can we get the guy that posts the long "why your solution to spam won't work" thing in response to antispam proposals to think one up for "why SCO won't die this time"?

Hollywood lied to me (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075605)

Clearly, Zombies are *incredibly* hard to kill.

Re:Hollywood lied to me (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075667)

This is getting past the "scarer" plot when you think the monster is dead but it gets up again. Its like the B movie when it has happened so many times you have passed the scared point, the laughing point and just wish the bloody thing would finish so you can go home.

Re:Hollywood lied to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075767)

Yeah, IBM was all like "I closed the door you stupid zombie so suck it" and SCO was all like "You're playing difficulty hard you lamer" and breaks down the door. Heeeeeeeeeeeere's JOHNNY!

Re:Hollywood lied to me (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075921)

Clearly, Zombies are *incredibly* hard to kill.

Have your read up on Mr. Slant from Discworld? Fire.

Statute of limitations (4, Insightful)

chipperdog (169552) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075629)

Can't IBM make a statute of limitations claim, otherwise SCO can just keep backing off and then bringing this up again and again

Re:Statute of limitations (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075719)

At this point, if I were IBM I would be looking into hiring mercenaries to eliminate the problem. The courts might even chip in to help.

Re:Statute of limitations (5, Interesting)

doconnor (134648) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075763)

It would be cheaper for IBM just to buy SCO. Since they are in bankruptcy protection they can't turn down a responsible offer.

Re:Statute of limitations (5, Insightful)

rwise2112 (648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075851)

Maybe that's what they're after.

Re:Statute of limitations (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075891)

I am pretty sure that is what SCO wanted the first time they sued IBM.

Re:Statute of limitations (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076075)

I am pretty sure that is what SCO wanted the first time they sued IBM.

To drive their own business into the ground, alienate customers, remove any funding for R&D and divert it to legal efforts?

Didn't work for Ashton Tate. Doesn't anyone learn?

Oh, wait, greedy people and lawyers involved .. nemmind

Re:Statute of limitations (5, Insightful)

Lando (9348) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076693)

Yeah when they first started out it was noted that IBM could have just bought out the company at the then market place for less than the lawsuit was expected to cost, but IBM didn't do so. The conjecture here was that it would just create copy cat lawsuilts.

Re:Statute of limitations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075873)

but the responsible offer is over 9000 THOUSAND TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

Re:Statute of limitations (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075961)

Yes but this was SCO's plan all along. At this point IBM is pissed enough that they want to grind SCO to dust rather than purchase them. Also buying SCO also means buying SCO's liabilities which include numerous lawsuits. (This was the one aspect SCO forgot in that when they bought Santa Cruz's business they also bought Santa Cruz's liabilities to Novell). Really SCO has no assets IBM wants.

Re:Statute of limitations (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076059)

Yes. IBM's end goal involves salting earth, poisoning wells, and the lamentation of women. And frankly, that's better than Darl deserves.

Re:Statute of limitations (2)

gtall (79522) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076161)

Errr...Darl was sacked long ago. I forget who's running the show, but they have worth now, last I read on Groklaw.

Re:Statute of limitations (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076167)

The plan made sense when SCO was actually worth something. Now it's basically worthless, other than it's highly dubious claims against IBM. It looks more to me like IBM is trying to get a court to squash the case once and for all.

Re:Statute of limitations (4, Funny)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076183)

I think at this point a 'reasonable offer' would be a bag of corn nuts. At least then their VC parters would get a snack out of the deal.

Re:Statute of limitations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076587)

Let's be generous.

IBM should go to bankruptcy judge and offer $20 and a Costco-size bag of Corn nuts for SCO.

If the judge balks, IBM can then say, "with all due respects, your honor, we've already established the nature of the relationship. Now we're just niggling about the financial terms..."

Re:Statute of limitations (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076683)

I think that a reasonable offer would be to not take every single one of them out to a deserted field and put a bullet in the back of their heads.

Re:Statute of limitations (5, Insightful)

stoicfaux (466273) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076223)

IBM buying SCO would be a win for SCO's backers. They would point at the purchase and say, "How nefarious! IBM had to buy SCO to cover up IBM's perfidy and malfeasance! Linux really does infringe and contains tainted code! Open Source is Teh Evil!"

Re:Statute of limitations (3, Informative)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076237)

They can claim the value of the pending legal action against IBM is $1 trillion dollars if they want to resist a buy-out. Unlike other people who replied here, I don't think SCO wants a buy-out, I don't think they're in this for the money. I mean, they're in it for the money, but they're in it for the massive cash M$ already paid them, and in exchange for that, they are providing FUD. If they let IBM buy them, they will have no FUD left to sell.

Incidentally, the rumor mill says this sort of thing has happened before - a supposedly infringing company that would rather just buy the company who's IP they're infringing, but can not afford to buy that company for the sole reason that the perceived value of the lawsuit against them makes the company unaffordable. A higher offer simply provides evidence that the lawsuit is worth that much more. Supposedly Steve Jobs tried to just buy Apple Corps, and offered more than anyone thought the perpetual rights to the Beatles catalog is worth, but that wasn't enough because they wanted the value of the Beatles catalog plus the value of the lawsuit against Apple... and the lawsuit against Apple was worth at least any offer Jobs would make for Apple Corps...

Re:Statute of limitations (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076667)

It would be cheaper for IBM just to buy SCO. Since they are in bankruptcy protection they can't turn down a responsible offer.

If so, then they could disclose all the 'infringing Linux code' and release any SCO IP they purchased as public domain.

Re:Statute of limitations (2)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076743)

I think SCO's original plan was a buyout from IBM.

But it's better for IBM's reputation to burn SCO to the ground, salt the earth, and put up a plaque describing the events for anyone who would ever fuck with them in the future.

IBM wins the game. The money is worth it to them. It buys them a reputation that no other use of the money can come close to.

No one will play this game against IBM again.

Re:Statute of limitations (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075855)

IBM could make that claim in the beginning; statute of limitations does not apply to the length of a lawsuit. SCO filed within the statute; them dragging a non-case for years is another matter. Now should SCO file new claims then IBM can invoke statute of limitations.

Re:Statute of limitations (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076447)

UNIX is nowhere near old enough to have had its copyright expire yet. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that SCO doesn't own the copyright.

Re:Statute of limitations (2)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076455)

I thought that SCO was totally transformed into a new company called UnXiS, which owns SCO OSE and Unixware, and apparently doesn't have a clue on what to do w/ them. They're still alive to sue? Does anyone other than its board really work there? What's their source of income, for starters? After Monterrey went south, I thought it was over for them.

Honestly, I think their best hope would be to port Unixware to the Itanium, and try to get bought by Intel.

a sign of the apocalypse? (2, Funny)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075691)

I suppose this was unavoidable once Duke Nukem Forever went gold...

Re:a sign of the apocalypse? (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075927)

Duke Nukem Forever was certainly a sign, but SCO's continued existence is more of a business as usual. Now if SCO finally dropped dead and stopped rising from the grave. Then I would worry.

Where do I send my check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075717)

Where do I send my check? I want to be free of this issue once and for all. Do you understand Daryl?

Re:Where do I send my check? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076005)

Too late for money to matter I fear, SCOX was delisted so you cant get a majority share and tell them to sit down and shut up. What we're left with is some sort of zombie corporation that's still attacking even efter we shotgunned its head.

Re:Where do I send my check? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076197)

That's why corporations shouldn't be treated as people; at least people (even very dumb ones) are intelligent enough to know when they're dead.

Can't someone just buy them out already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075727)

If they're bankrupt can't someone just buy them out for pennies to end this once and for all?
Seriously, let's start a kickstarter campaign.
g=

Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075759)

You're assuming SCO's worth the pennies.

Re:Can't someone just buy them out already? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076479)

In fact, as someone pointed out above, anyone stupid enough to buy them is just accepting all their liabilities.

uh-oh (4, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075729)

I better go pay my $699 per CPU fee, because clearly Zombie SCO cannot be stopped.

Re:uh-oh (1)

twotacocombo (1529393) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075785)

If a corporation is a 'person', then clearly there must be some way to remove the head or destroy the brain, right? Oh jesus, what have we done...

IBM wants this (4, Informative)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075739)

They want it to proceed (which I believe was frozen after SCO went into bankruptcy) so that IBM can pound the shit out of SCO in court again.

Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (5, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075753)

In the article, it says SCO is broke:
"total assets as $0 (yes, that's "zero"), down from $1,326,293 on petition date, and total liabilities of $1,119,238, up from $418,965 on petition date."

So who the F@#K would represent them for free?
Is money coming from "the cloud"?

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (0)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075825)

Someone must be paying the lawyers just to hassle Linux generally and/or IBM specifically.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076525)

Someone must be paying the lawyers just to hassle Linux generally and/or IBM specifically.

Well, I can only imagine that some troll somewhere believes that if only they can finally win in this case, the huge amount of windfall it would generate would be massive.

If you can get a court to say that everyone who is running Linux owes you a bunch of money, that would represent a huge sum. Quite possibly something they project in the billions.

Now, with luck IBM will finally grind these guys into the ground. So far they've lost any legal claim to the copyright of UNIX, and they've failed to show what was actually infringing ... so hopefully other than trying to wave their peckers around, they'll rapidly discover they haven't got any legal claim to what they're saying.

I fear it's going to take an actual final court ruling that says "no you don't have any claim and you have no more recourse". Because they're just going to keep coming back until they exhaust all of their legal options. The last case just sort of petered out as they failed to show any evidence, I'd like to see this one end in a pretty firm ruling.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075841)

If it's the same as the last round, I'd say that we'd find the answer we were looking for in Redmond, WA.

And that's not just basic MS bashing - we have the memo [catb.org].

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (4, Funny)

atouk (1336461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075897)

It's probobly a group of ex Righthaven lawyers with some free time doing pro bono work to stay sharp.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076009)

Nearly all anti-Linux activity is funded by Microsoft. You may have to follow the money through a couple of different shell companies to get there, but when it comes to anti-Linux, all roads lead to Redmond.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076165)

Even the people that mod this post down. are based in Redmond in one way or another.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (5, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076045)

I believe SCO worked out a deal with Boies in the middle of the case. The trial fees were capped at $25M but Boies was paid upfront. So Boies has to represent SCO; however, with the money gone, no one says they have to represent with their best attorneys.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (5, Informative)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076087)

So who the F@#K would represent them for free?

Boies, Schiller & Flexner. At one point SCO got BS&F to agree to represent them through appeals for what BS&F had already received plus a percentage of the proceeds. Score one for SCO.

~Loyal

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (1)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076399)

At one point SCO got BS&F to agree to represent them through appeals for what BS&F had already received plus a percentage of the proceeds.

Which is a strategic mistake on the part of BS&F, and should be considered a conflict of interest, since it gives them a stake in the outcome. It no longer makes them attorneys for the plaintiffs, but rather turns them into the plaintiffs. They may have become more focused on their own best interest, and less focused on their client's best interest.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076219)

They are probably still borrowing to pay the lawyers, or they have bills piling up with the lawyers too invested to simply quit.. kinda like a 419 scam.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076241)

They got their lawyers to agree to a decent one-time payment plus a share of the final payout in exchange for sticking with the case till all the appeals are done.

In other words, their lawyers are stuck working for free till the last appeal is over and done...

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (1)

FridayBob (619244) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076413)

... So who the F@#K would represent them for free? ...

They themselves? IIRC, companies that engage in patent tolling activities often consist largely or entirely of lawyers.

Re:Who's paying SCO's lawyers? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076507)

Maybe the lawyers are SCO's owners, and all that's left of their workforce. You didn't think they actually have any Unix programmers left, did you?

Summary Judgement (2)

Starmac (544848) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075819)

Since I'm not an attorney, I'm shooting from the hip; but shouldn't IBM just move for a summary judgement and request thr court order SCO to pay it's legal costs as well as the court's costs?

Re:Summary Judgement (3, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076185)

IBM has already moved for summary judgement and the court has ruled that there are enough issues of law for the case to proceed. Normally summary judgements are granted when they are no issues of fact. Some of the claims SCO has made may be thrown out because they did not own the copyrights. (IBM violating their Unix agreements have been waived by Novell and Novell owns the Unix copyrights). Claims that IBM interfered with SCO's business and IBM infringed upon UnixWare copyrights is a question of law.

Ok, we can go now (2)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075869)

Now that SCO has spent all its money and sold off all its assets for peanuts, now it can proceed with lawsuits where it will be found liable for additional money. All still safely behind the shield of bankruptcy court of course (A court which thinks selling off all assets and giving the finger to creditors is a plausible way to restructure a business)

HELP!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39075925)

I am running loonix and I noticed there is a package called CPP.
Is this the same as CP?
How do I remove the CPP from my PC?

$1,515,129 (2)

Bonker (243350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39075959)

The MOR for TSG shows total assets as $0 (yes, that's "zero"), down from $1,326,293 on petition date, and total liabilities of $1,119,238, up from $418,965 on petition date. The MOR for TSG Operations shows total assets as $1,515,129, down from $15,493,080 on petition date, and total liabilities of $9,739,295, up from $4,311,640 on petition date. Go SCO! It was not bankrupt when it entered bankruptcy protection, but it surely is now.

Total assets: $1,515,129. Total Debt: $10,858,533

Hmm... SCO's in a world of hurt. I'm trying to figure out how they can even get lawyers to work with them at this point, unless they're using a 'We don't get paid unless you get paid!' ambulance chaser-type personal liability attorney.

Hey, IBM. That's a total of $12,373,662. According to your 2010 income report, it looks like you're making a net of about 14 billion dollars a year... literally more than a thousand times that. And I'm thinking that at least some of that $10.9m is owed to you. If you guys negotiate a bit with the other creditors, I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.

That's lunch money for a company like IBM. It's less than a certain Kickstart project we've all been reading about.

Think about the good will you could create by taking a dump truck to what's left of SCO and then public-domaining the entire shebang.

Re:$1,515,129 (5, Insightful)

tokul (682258) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076049)

I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.

Whole point of this trial is about refusing to buy out company which tries to extort money.

Re:$1,515,129 (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076765)

I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.

Whole point of this trial is about refusing to buy out company which tries to extort money.

Only when they're fighting over billions. IBM will spend more on lawyers that SCO would cost to buy right now. It's in their shareholders' interest to end this case as cheaply as possible. Buying what's left of SCO is the quickest and cheapest solution, and a kick in the teeth for Microsoft. IBM will have access to all the documents from MS's and Sun's attack on Linux via SCO, which will prove to be very embarrassing.

Re:$1,515,129 (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076125)

At least for the Novell lawsuit, they paid the lawyers a lump sum and go them to agree to continue with the case through all appeals without further pay. I don't remember whether that agreement applied to the IBM lawsuit as well.

And that $1.5 million is their TOTAL assets. They sold off everything but their rights to continue the lawsuit with IBM. There's nothing left to public domain.

Re:$1,515,129 (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076201)

IBM has 3 reasonable purposes here:
1. They want SCO to have to get up in court and admit that they never had a leg to stand on, or a ruling from the bench to the same effect. This is in part to prevent any successor to SCO from pulling the same stunt.
2. To deter anyone else who's tempted to make similar claims from even trying it.
3. Buying them out would be a mercy killing. IBM has no reason to be merciful.

Re:$1,515,129 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076211)

SCO has no assets. they own nothing.

paying them anything means SCO wins.

make their lawyers work for free. they love that stuff.

Re:$1,515,129 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076581)

They wouldn't get anything for the $2-4 million investment but liabilities to other companies and more debt when the hammer drops on the other lawsuits, plus dozens of other failing companies suing for Linux violations when they realize IBM buys out companies that sue them.

IBM is taking the right course here.Crush, kill, destroy, and send a message that legal claims of Linux ownership is corporate suicide.

Re:$1,515,129 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076627)

I'm betting you could simply up and purchase all SCO's assets for about $2-4m.

It's less than a certain Kickstart project we've all been reading about.

If somebody sets up a Kickstart project to buy SCO, this could all be over by the end of February.

Re:$1,515,129 (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076773)

Hmm... SCO's in a world of hurt. I'm trying to figure out how they can even get lawyers to work with them at this point, unless they're using a 'We don't get paid unless you get paid!' ambulance chaser-type personal liability attorney.

BS&F are on the hook until the heat death of the universe to provide SCO (as long as it exists) legal counsel. Whether or not SCO can afford it. if they can't, then it will be provided for free.

That's the kind of contract they signed. They were bamboozled by various supporters of SCO. BS&F bet the farm on an illusory 5 billion dollar lawsuit because it was a "sure thing."

Ralph Yarro::

  "We don't care how big you are. If you mess with us, we're going to take you on, even to our utter destruction, whatever occurs. We fear nobody, and we are respecters of no persons."

--
BMO

Half way there. (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076107)

First Half: Gurgle gurgle gurgle woosh squeek squeek cough... Dude, I just had this great idea!
Second Half: Lets sue IBM again.

SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076119)

It's time to make this personal. The people running SCO know the company is trashed beyond repair and everyone hates them so they don't care to take it further. The individuals deciding to do this get to hide behind the corporate curtain while we only talk about SCO like it's some type of evil opaque entity.

I do think entrepreneurs deserve a level of protection with an INC or LLC, but at some point, it becomes a shield for bad and corrupt behavior. We need to expose the people doing this and make sure the tech industry knows who they are and they will be tarnished for hiring them later.

Already in progress (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076263)

Error 503 Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable

Guru Meditation:

XID: 1328143252

See, Slashdot? That happens when you don't pay for your licenses!

repeat this (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076401)

This is the lawsuit that never ends, it goes on and on my friends. some people started suing just because, making...

Three things will survive the Apocalypse: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076423)

1) Cockroaches
2) Keith Richards
3) The SCO case.

Re:Three things will survive the Apocalypse: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076673)

4) The DFS sale

Oh, no. Not again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076467)

signed,
the petunias

Why still alive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39076487)

Why oh why are they still alive? They can hardly gain anything here.....

Except one thing: If Linux is appearing to gain in the marketplace, then the marketing bunnies might use "SCO infringement" to ward off greater Linux penetration in the server marketplace. But who would bankroll "Zombie SCO" to do such a thing? Well, clearly it would have to be a company with ZERO scruples, money to burn, and a presence in the server marketplace. In that regard, the entire SCO action might have been a marketing play from the first day. SCO would act as the 'sacrificial bunny' to scare enough people to not deploy Linux. Of course once deployed, companies can get their own hard numbers on how well Linux performs, and real numbers in hand kill marketing bluster faster than anything. So look for large server contracts coming up for renewal by companies currently served by a nefarious software company , and you will be able to trace back who is bankrolling 'Zombie SCO'.

Microsoft's involvement (4, Informative)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#39076695)

It's a fact that Microsoft funded SCO's lawsuits against Linux under the table.

In October 2003, BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada invested US$50 million in The SCO Group to support the legal cost of SCO's Linux campaign. Later it was shown that BayStar was referred to SCO by Microsoft, whose proprietary Windows operating system competes with Linux. In 2003, BayStar looked at SCO on the recommendation of Microsoft, according to Lawrence R. Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar Capital: "It was evident that Microsoft had an agenda".

On March 4, 2004, a leaked SCO internal e-mail detailed how Microsoft had raised up to $106 million via the BayStar referral and other means. Blake Stowell of SCO confirmed the memo was real. BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them. In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO.

(Wikipedia [wikipedia.org])

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...