Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Slammed in Slander of Title Suit

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the sweet-creamy-justice dept.

Caldera 336

SillySlashdotName writes "Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements. More info on groklaw." EWeek also has a story.

cancel ×

336 comments

But... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401264)

Can they still beat my honda hybrid ?

An open letter to Google (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401492)

To all it may concern,
You should be ashamed of yourselves. As the description of a search engine goes, one simply finds relevant information to a query and displays results. This does not include the views of the engine's maintainers, owners, frequent users, nor corporate interests. If you are to claim any high moral ground or properly do your job, you must remove whatever makes George W. Bush's biography appear upon the search "miserable failure" as the first result. It is a shameful thing to see such a thing. You are putting your own bias in front of actual information. How can people trust the results if this continues? Like I said before, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I hate GWB like the rest of them, but I do not by any means support this obvious obfuscation of information.

-The Microphone Phantom

Kimball (-1, Offtopic)

Mz6 (741941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401266)

After the ruling, Judge Kimball stood up and shouted, "It's not a tumor!" [imdb.com] to a bunch of stunned kids in a classro... oh sorry wrong story.

Slap! (4, Funny)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401268)

I'm Novell, bitch!

Ding-Dong (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401270)

ha ha hah ha ha ha

WooHoo!!! (-1)

jdray (645332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401271)

WooHoo!!!

There is some light at the end of the tunnel (5, Funny)

CodeMaster (28069) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401276)

We just need to make sure that SCO will keep going the other way ;-)

Finally some sense out of our judicial system. Who would believe that...

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel (4, Funny)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401450)

OT may be...

There is some light at the end of the tunnel

When you in a long narrow tunnel and you start to see light at the end of it, It's usually of the approaching train.

The Beggining of The End for SCO (5, Insightful)

Pavan_Gupta (624567) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401280)

And so now, it becomes clear that SCO may never provide the required evidence to prove that they are indeed correct. I believe that this is a clear signal that the SCO case is seeing the end of it's days. Everyone, rejoice! Together now!

But I thought... (2, Interesting)

Atario (673917) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401609)

The Smoking Gun has 30 days to come up with something...and they always deliver.

Oh. Oh oh oh. The Sco Group...never mind!

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401665)

The rats are fleeing the sinking ship -> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=6m&l=off&z= l&q=l&c= [yahoo.com]

One down (3, Insightful)

dustmote (572761) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401286)

How many more cases to go?

Puff, puff, pass... (5, Interesting)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401291)

From the article:
Marc Modersitzki, SCO's public relations manager, said, "We're pleased with the ruling. We look forward to responding to the court's special damages request." This request gives SCO the chance to amend its complaint against Novell.
So they're pleased they get a chance to clarify their complaint, but the idea of being pleased about the ruling itself makes me think that Darl has been passing the crack pipe around the office. I personally don't think they are going to make the 30 day deadline for filing the special damages request. SCO has been acting like a student that professes to be smart, but never does a bit of their assignments.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (5, Funny)

FerretFrottage (714136) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401329)

No kidding...last time SCO needed to produce a bunch of evidence, they failed ot do so or were late because they were on Christmas vacation. Now with summer and all, I suspect they'll claim that the weather is just too nice to deal with the judge's demands.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401391)

Now with summer and all, I suspect they'll claim that the weather is just too nice to deal with the judge's demands.
With that inflated stock value that just went away in the last month, I bet someone at SCO bought a boat when their net worth went up enough. Too bad it looks like they'll have to give the boat back when this is all over and their net worth tanks. Might as well get that last hoorah in ;)

Two words... (1)

Compuser (14899) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401503)

July 4

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (-1, Offtopic)

greg_barton (5551) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401357)

SCO has been acting like a student that professes to be smart, but never does a bit of their assignments.

Funny, I did this all through college and still got B's. I just aced the tests.

Homework is boring.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401372)

Crack heads dont pass. They keep it all for themselves.

Just an FYI. The crack culture and the MJ culture are very different.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (1)

BrynM (217883) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401415)

The crack culture and the MJ culture are very different.
I know and have lived with both crack heads and pot heads. (long stories - don't ask). You're right, but the humor still stands for the average /.er.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401464)

Well, Yeah, but I'm really tired of the stereotype of the average MJ smoker, especially associating them with hopeless crackheads.

I'd love to hear some of your stories about crackheads/potheads. :)

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401468)

I'm a crackhead and I pass you insensitive clod!

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401510)

We're not talking about gas.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (4, Informative)

khym (117618) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401446)

Well, you see, according to SCO, they really, really wanted to have the issue tried in fedetral court before Judge Kimball, but gosh darn it, the rules require them to ask for it to be remanded to the state court. So they're glad they lost the remand.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (5, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401460)

but the idea of being pleased about the ruling itself makes me think that Darl has been passing the crack pipe around the office

Oh come on, surely you know The Rules. Rule #1 is, in its totality, "Never Admit Anything. Anything."

This is exactly the sort of thing that caused the creation of the Cluetrain Manifesto [cluetrain.com] ; it's not a perfect document but there's a lot of truth in it, like #14:
14. Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman.
You know they lost. I know they lost. They know they lost. But The Rules say they must not admit it, not even a little.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (0, Redundant)

Oliver Wendell Jones (158103) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401588)

Oh come on, surely you know The Rules. Rule #1 is, in its totality, "Never Admit Anything. Anything."

1) Admit Nothing
2) Deny Everything
3) Make Counter Accusations

There probably ought to be a 4) ??? and 5) Profit, but isn't that joke getting a little stale?

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401677)

Getting stale?! The mold growing on it has evolved into a higher form of intelligence by now. And anyone who attempts to welcome their mold overlords should dragged out into the street and shot. :P

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401661)

Too bad the clue train never made any stops in "profit town".

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401676)

If they admit they lost, they could be sued for "failing to promote shareholder value" or somesuch.

They are essentially bound to see this through...otherwise, they'd get sued by their own shareholders. They took a gamble and lost, and everything else is just following through to avoid getting sued.

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401513)

I'm a crackhead and don't like being associated with Darl you insensitive clod!

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (1)

Karem Lore (649920) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401598)

Do you not think that this is another delay tactic? 30-days to raise share value, sell a few more and come back in 29 days saying...Ooh look at this...we do/don't have evidence. Sorry, misplaced it somewhere...

Re:Puff, puff, pass... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401653)

No no, that can be done better, they should stage a breakin, then claim the evidence was stolen by those evil ip-stealin' linux hippies

Summary of further posts: (5, Funny)

Jonsey (593310) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401296)

"They got what they deserved"

"What? They've not been laughed away totally yet?"

"Why did they get off so easy for that much FUD"

Summary of news story: "Judge isn't buying it, put up, or shut up."

Re:Summary of parent post: (-1, Offtopic)

Dizzle (781717) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401368)

"I want all the karma from this story."

"What? I haven't gotten +5 yet?"

"Why is everyone else getting +5?"

Summary of news story: "Ummm... don't know, didn't RTFA."

one down... (5, Funny)

rokka (631038) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401304)

One suit down, 100000000000000000000000000 to go.

Re:one down... (0, Redundant)

kunudo (773239) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401404)

would that be 67108864 or 1x10^26?

It wasn't dismissed (4, Informative)

TrailerTrash (91309) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401311)

RTFA - the request to remand to state court was denied. Novell's motion to dismiss was also denied.

It will be fun to hear the special damages they will come up with. If Novell had not created a "cloud of ownership", they could have what, doubled their SCOsource revenue from $11,000 to $22,000?!?

Re:It wasn't dismissed (5, Informative)

Chmarr (18662) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401356)

RTFA - the request to remand to state court was denied. Novell's motion to dismiss was also denied.

Well, technically it IS dismissed, but on the basis of 'failure to plead special damages' and not on the basis of 'falsity'.

However, Novell's motion to dismiss as grated WITHOUT PREJUDICE, meaning that SCO can amend the complaint later, and the judge has explicitly given them 30 days to do so.

So... RTFA right back atcha!

Re:It wasn't dismissed (1)

TrailerTrash (91309) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401530)

The parent article claimed: "and has dismissed the case". The CASE was not dismissed. The Motion To Remand was denied, the Motion To Dismiss was denied based on falsity, and the Motion to Dismiss was granted as to pleading of special damages. The -case- was not dismissed. Nothing was, in fact, dismissed - motions were either denied or granted.

RTFA: Your Volley!

Re:It wasn't dismissed (4, Informative)

Xanthian (714965) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401366)

Re-RTFA. The motion to dismiss was denied as to the pleading of falsity, but GRANTED as to the pleading of special damages. SCO has 30 days to come up with some new rantings and ravings as to special damages, or the case IS dismissed.

Re:It wasn't dismissed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401402)

I have this one guy who I use all my mod points on, negatively of course.

I want to thank Slasdhot for giving me the ability to track my foes.

mod parent down, false (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401429)

Novell submitted two requests for dismissal; the first one was rejected and the second one was approved. It only takes one.

Article wrong. Slashdot right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401489)

The eweek article was wrong but slashdot got it right. Let this be a moral to you all.

Re:It wasn't dismissed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401508)

Ha, you fucking ASS. You were WRONG and now I hope you get modded to HELL.

Re:It wasn't dismissed (YES IT WAS) (3, Informative)

djtrainwreck (266541) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401564)

From Judge: "Accordingly, Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim for failure to specifically plead special damages is granted without prejudice." Also: CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.

TSG? Thats ME (-1, Offtopic)

samsmithnz (702471) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401324)

Awwww, and I thought our IT department had an orginal name (TSG = Technology and Services Group), now we're going to have to change it again, probably back to boring MIS... ;p

Please don't let it get dismissed... (5, Insightful)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401332)

Personally I'd rather not see any of the cases (SCO vs. IBM... SCO vs. Novell... SCO vs. RedHat) dismissed. After all, a dismissed case can always be redone later. Personally, I'd rather see the cases and trials move on and see the truth told and *hopefully* IBM and Novell win. At least then we don't have a *what if* hanging over our heads.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed... (4, Informative)

Chmarr (18662) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401387)

After all, a dismissed case can always be redone later.


That is true only if it is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Which in this case it is.

However, if the judge then says DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, then that's it... the plaintiff cannot refile.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed... (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401517)

Nah, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE just means you can't refile on that exact same damage. SCO can find things to sue about for years to come if they have cash. To be truely done with them they either have to run out of money or the parties they are suing have to win an injunction against SCO baring them from bringing suit against a named list of potential litigants.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed... (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401493)

Not necessarily. According to the eWeek article, SCO was denied on its motion to have the case moved to a state court instead of a federal one. Even if a federal judge dismisses with prejudice, SCO can start a new fight in state court. Besides, they could always make new accusations that are just slightly different than the originals... in which case its considered an entirely new case and the with prejudice won't be applicable.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed... (1)

mirror_dude (775745) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401514)

Unless its dissmised with prejudice (cant file same suit again or substantially similar suit).
You want it dismissed with extreem prejudice, where by they cant file law suits any more wihout a lot of hoops to go through first... Often done to keep places like SCO from filing even more frivilous law suits.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed... (2, Interesting)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401574)

Just wait til SCO discovers that Microsoft's new HPC server [theregister.co.uk] uses technology from Linux (which according to SCO has illegal UNIX code in it) and then determines that Microsoft's UNIX license only covers the use of real UNIX and not UNIX illegally contributed to Linux and therefore Microsoft's use of Linux technologies to make their HPC server violates SCOs alleged copyrights. Once Microsoft starts making a profit from its HPC server, then SCO can sue them despite their UNIX license. Kind of circular, I know, but SCO isn't exactly known for using logic, common sense, and reason of late.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401682)

Ah, but SCO licensed technology to Microsoft, and Microsoft licensed technology to SCO, keeping Microsoft "legal" in SCO's eyes (and allowing some FUD to be generated for SCO) and SCO having licensed Microsoft's technoogy keeps the antitrust dogs at bay, because Microsoft is "sharing".

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed... (2, Informative)

squistle (9255) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401576)

Actually, not all dismissed cases can be refiled. If it is dismissed without prejudice, as this one was, they can refile the suit, and in fact the judge went so far as to say they have 30 days to do so. If he had dismissed it with prejudice, the case would be completely thrown out and could not be refiled.

There is also another opportunity which the judge hinted at in his order and which PJ at Groklaw [groklaw.net] pointed out. He said that he cannot completely throw the case out at the dismissal stage, but that Novell had made some persuasive arguments. The hint is that once SCO amends its complaint, Novell should file for a summary judgement. That will produce a ruling on the case's merits (or lack thereof).

You're right, we don't really want a dismissal. We really want a judgement, and I would expect Novell will ask for exactly that in the very near future.

Yet another deadline (5, Insightful)

blockhouse (42351) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401334)

Yet another deadline? We've seen this kind of thing before. Let's not get our panties in a bunch just yet, this is not over yet. Not by a long shot.

Call me when the case is dismissed, and the dismissal is upheld on appeal. Guess we'll be waiting for a long time.

Matter of fact, don't call me until SCO goes through Chapter 7 bankruptcy and ceases operations, cause it's only then that this monster will be dead and buried.

Re:Yet another deadline (5, Interesting)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401512)

Oh no. These companies are like horror movie monsters. No matter how thoroughly you kill them, someone buys up their IP and in a few years decides to try to sue the world at large themselves.

SCO vs. IBM is just an attempt to re-try USL vs. Berkely. If SCO goes under before being hammered flat in the court system it'll be Wayland/Yutani vs. the Linux Developers Guild in 2013.

finally something happened (1)

Da_Slayer (37022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401335)

Finally one of the lawsuits had some form of resolution. Only time will tell how this ruling will affect the other cases and the overall direction of Open Source litigation.

So the case is going to stay in Federal Court and SCO is not backed into a corner with non-favorable conditions in which they have to fight this battle.

Most of us hope that SCO just gets bitch slapped and the disappear into the night and never return. =)

SCO is the suxx0rz (5, Interesting)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401337)

Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case

Yes!!! Yes!!! SCO is going DOWN baby!!!

but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements.

Noooooooo!!!!!!! Arrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!!!! Don't give 'em any more time--they're going to use it to stretch this bullshit even longer!!!!

***

Ok, seriously now, I think that each of SCO's cases is going to get thrown out one-by-one, and when SCO has to start paying others' legal fees (I can't wait until they have to pay IBM's), they are going to disappear, without accomplishing what Microsoft wants them to accomplish, which is to screw the Linux community over. I think they will accomplish the exact opposite, which is giving lots and lots and lots of free advertising worldwide to Linux, and then when SCO loses all these cases, it will prove to the world that Linux is legitimate, and Microsoft will have screwed themselves over. Nanny nanny boo boo!!!

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz (3, Insightful)

3n1gm4 (689083) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401485)

I think they are accomplishing exactly what Microsoft wants, they are making companies hesitate in going to a broad Linux platform change while they wotk on their new licensing and integration plans. Microsoft is very vulnerable in that they haven't been able to answer the security issues as well as finishing their next platform. Even a months delay is worth a lot to Microsoft.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401594)

I'd say the're doing exactly what microsoft want, keeping peoples eyes off them, so they can lauch the patent suits later.

Question: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401596)

How in the hell did a post that contains the words "Nanny nanny boo boo!!!" get modded as interesting?

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz (1)

rajafarian (49150) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401599)

... without accomplishing what Microsoft wants them to accomplish, which is to screw the Linux community over."

I respectfully disagree, sir. I that the goal was "only" to create FUD: "Look, if you use Linux, you could get sued, why even Daimler-Chrysler got sued..." Nevermind that even Micros~1 gets sued and nevermind all the SCO lawsuits will be thrown out. Pure FUD. Methinks when Longhorn comes out, half the ads will say, "Do you want to risk your business getting sued??? Buy Longhorn!!!"

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz (4, Insightful)

Compuser (14899) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401623)

You may be right. There is a rule that any publicity
is good publicity. Fact is, until this whole thing
it looked like Linux was a plaything not matched
against REAL Unices. Then those morons come out and
claim that Linux is industrial strength and how can
that have happened so fast. Then all these big corps
start throwing major money at Linux defense with
HP going so far as to indemnify customers. Now the
perception is that Linux is indeed big and capable
and has major commercial backing. If nothing else
this has forced many players in the field to
declare their stand.
This has also led to a reexamination of code submission
procedures. Now rogue code will be harder to slip
into Linux (at least kernel).
So if the intention was to damage Linux then this
has done the exact opposite methinks. The one thing
that remains to be seen is whether IBM is willing
to use its patent portfolio to pressure Microsoft
not to suffocate F/OSS with its patents. If this
is the case then full-blown OS competition may be
right around the corner.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401657)

Noooooooo!!!!!!! Arrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!!!! Don't give 'em any more time--they're going to use it to stretch this bullshit even longer!!!!

Which is EXACTLY what we want, Grasshopper.

The longer they are tied up spending all their cash and legal muscle in these dead-end cases, the less they will have for (a) other cases later and (b) business of any kind after these cases fail.

Quick judgements actually work in their favor. Don't put it past Darl & Co to come up with something else obnoxious after they loose these. We want their funds completly dry.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz (1)

Chagrin (128939) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401671)

...when SCO has to start paying others' legal fees...


The idea is, when SCO has to start paying other's legal fees, there will be no money left.

/obvious

Not over yet (2, Insightful)

slusich (684826) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401338)

I think we can count on the clowns at SCO to continue to drag this thing out. This may be the begining of the end, but it's still a long way from over.

PDF (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401353)

Give us some warning when linking to a PDF file, please. It's very annoying to try to open it in a new tab, have it download instead, and end up with a file that opens in xpdf as 21 blank pages!

Re:PDF (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401542)

Sounds like something's broken with your setup. I middle click on a pdf and acrobat plugin starts downloading the pdf in a new tab, and even in the background =) I assume xpdf can be made to do the same thing if setup correctly.

Re:PDF (4, Insightful)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401560)

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to hover the mouse over links before I actually click on them for this exact reason.

You know... (5, Insightful)

xenostar (746407) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401361)

..if you're gonna base all your corporate strategy on lawsuits, you better get your sh*t together and at least make the court deadlines on time.

Re:You know... (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401515)

I totally agree. However, they didn't have a case to begin with so...

Re:You know... (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401654)

the corporate strategy is built around APPEARING as if one has lawsuits that could bring in money.. not actually having them.

-(don't ask me how that's supposed to make 'em money)

More information on the SCO website (4, Interesting)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401364)

Naah, I don't think this news item qualifies for the SCO News Page [sco.com] which is supposed to contain:

SCO in the NEWS
Recent SCO Headlines
News About The SCO Group

As far as SCO is concerned, only FUD like:

SCO beefs up user identity management, vnunet.com
Green Hills Sparks Embedded Linux Security Row, Computer Business Review Online
MoD opts for SCO identity system, vnunet.com
SCO Could Win: Week Two, eWeek.com
Red Hat's case against SCO put on hold, cnet news
IBM ordered to provide SCO with code, documents, ComputerWorld
SCO Should Win, eWeek.com
SCO wins Linux License payments, BBC News
SCO suits target two big Linux users, cnet news
Judge accepts expanded lawsuit, MSNBC

qualifies for their "News" page.

Re:More information on the SCO website (1)

Mudcathi (584851) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401469)

I prefer these headlines, also from SCO's newspage:

SCO issues warning to open-source vigilantes , ZDNet
Revenge Of The Nerds, Forbes
US-based software vendor SCO braces for onlsaught by Mydoom virus, AFP
Worm Attack Shuts Down Web Site, CBSnews.com
SCO waits for MyDoom attacks to end, ZDNet

Know what I learned? (4, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401389)

I am so glad IANAL. Can you imagine reading that stuff all day? I started nodding off around the Bear Creek Drainage precedent, and was hitting PageDn pretty quickly even before that.

Even if it is the entree to a lucrative career selling Linux insurance to the paranoid and lazy.

linux in public domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401397)

What would be really funny is as soon as SCO goes bankrupt they declare all of linux public domain.

They do this because they can't sell it and they don't want anyone else to profit from it either. (if i can't have it no one can)

Wheels (5, Interesting)

alficles (781213) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401410)

The Wheels of Justice do grind slowly, but they are grinding in the right direction. IBM, Novell, and all the Good Guys(tm) will eventually win. And then the countersuits will destroy SCO. Hopefully, the countersuits will destroy Darl. Also, we don't want the judge to make a mistake here. If he had thrown the case out, SCO would appeal it back in and things would take even longer. We want IBM/Novell/Good Guys(tm) to win fair and square. It is a clear cut case, they just need to make sure SCO can't claim they were beaten unfairly... because they will anyway. :)

Re:Wheels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401546)

Using (tm) is no longer vouge. Capitalization should suffice.

Worse then sausage. (5, Interesting)

killjoe (766577) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401411)

They say you should never observe how sausage or laws are made. I wish to amend that to say you should never observe how laws are litigated.

What a shameful display of the american legal system when after a year and half all the court can say is "I'll grant you another extension and the trial won't be till september of 2005".

A five year old would have settled this a year ago.

Re:Worse then sausage. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401545)

....off hand remark....
SCO managment must not have read up on the Tips for Evil Overlords.

Here's to hoping they get drawn and quartered (4, Insightful)

div_2n (525075) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401437)

Cross your fingers whether you are pro-Linux or pro-Microsoft that SCO gets hammered. Because if they win, you can bet the IT industry in the United States (and potentially other countries) is going to suck royally and innovation will take a huge setback.

About the only people that will make money in the short term are a select few corporate types and lawyers.

Re:Here's to hoping they get drawn and quartered (3, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401549)

Not just that. If SCO wins, expect to see copycat lawsuits from other scum companies, bogging down research and development in every aspect of the IT industry. But hey, if they win, I give up and move to India.

The rotting corpse of SCO (2, Funny)

locutus2k (103517) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401487)

I'll probably get whacked for this, but am I the only one who is tired of hearing about this? It will be nice when this mess is over, and done with. It has been nothing but SCO for months. SCO could stay in business if they foced everyone to pay a royalty whenever their acronym is mentined.

As long as Microsuck doesn't somehow buy SCO out, I for one am tired of caring. If Adolf Gates gets SCO then we can expect this kind of crap to continue until hell freezes over.

Thanx (3, Funny)

rootnl (644552) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401502)

I and my fellow friends would like thank SCO for the effort they have made to place Linux in the news papers. For them we can only be gratefull. Long live SC.. oh wait, Linux.

Well... (2, Interesting)

zeruch (547271) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401509)

...this is certainly a positive development. If we are lucky, this will be an indicator of things to come, as maybe this will snowball into an avalanche of failure for $Stupid_Cretinous_Organization.

The best aspect of this that I can gather is that is puts SCO firmly on the defensive.

Re:Well... (4, Funny)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401548)

The best aspect of this that I can gather is that is puts SCO firmly on the defensive.

Firmly on the definsive. Is that what you call showing up with a knife to a gunfight these days?

"SCO left out in the cold by IT industry" (5, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401523)

Hilarious [techworld.com] .

"That however is where Young and SCO's head Darl McBride leave reality alone and continue with their evangelistic pronouncements which are what have put the company in its sticky situation in the first place."

[...]

But still the company can't stop itself from issuing threats. "If they're willfully not buying licences, the price will be a horrific price," said Young. Why? Because of all the penalties that SCO will add when it has won all its lawsuits. "They run a huge risk. What they're looking at right now is a bet and that bet is going to get more expensive." But every week, the horse is looking more of an outsider.

Just go there and read it. I think the press is going to gang up on SCO and really kick them. What goes up, must come down.

Re:"SCO left out in the cold by IT industry" (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401573)

Did SCO hire Bahgdad bob to do press releases... again? There is no Novel victory here. They are committing suicide at the bar!

Spin-meisters (5, Funny)

eddy (18759) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401679)

Oh, they're real little spin-meisters. Check this one out [yahoo.com] :

"Hatch was also satisfied with Kimball's decision to have the case remain in federal court rather than remanded to state court."

'That's a good thing because the ruling precludes Novell from using jurisdiction as a delay tactic later on should the case turn bad for Novell.'" -- Brent Hatch, cited in the Daily Herald

You couldn't make shit like this up!

"Oh, we're sooo happy with the ruling. This is great for us. We really wanted to get our claims dismissed. Yes sir. That was the plan all al.. LOOK A WOOKIE!!!!"

Time Taken (5, Interesting)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401551)

People have commented here that they can't understand why it's taken so long to come to this ruling with the facts so clear cut.

Just remember that it's easier for a person to prove they own something than prove that someone else doesn't own it. If SCO had a legal document showing clear ownership they could have had this wrapped up much faster. On the other hand, Novel is saying "We have these documents that do NOT show SCO ownership." which doesn't prove your side; it only disproves the other.

SCO might always find a previously unknown document showing clear copyright conveyance.

Re:Time Taken (5, Interesting)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401628)

SCO might always find a previously unknown document showing clear copyright conveyance.

And OJ might track down Nicole's real killer.

I would think that before I filed the first brief in a 2 billions dollar lawsuit I would have said paperwork copied a few hundred times, and plate the originals in platnum-iridium.

If there is no paperwork, it didn't happen. If there was paperwork in this case, it should have been the first thing on the evidence table.

How did this get past the editors? (3, Informative)

optimus2861 (760680) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401556)

The case was not dismissed. SCO's motion to remand to state court was dismissed, meaning the court stays in federal court. Novell's motion to dismiss the case was partly denied; what got dismissed was SCO's pleading of "special damages", though the judge did give them 30 days to attempt to restate that claim. What it boils down to is that SCO has to prove in federal court that the UNIX copyrights it purports to own were in fact transferred, since copyright is a federal issue, not a state issue. SCO wanted the case heard strictly as a contract case in state court and did not want to have to prove it owned the copyrights.

There's a link to groklaw right in the article, for pete's sake. A cursory visit to the website would reveal the writeup is grossly misleading.

Read again. (5, Informative)

djtrainwreck (266541) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401630)

Judge Kimball:

"Accordingly, Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim for failure to specifically plead special damages is granted without prejudice."

And the Conclusion:

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.

Re:How did this get past the editors? (1)

RobertJLove (744705) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401652)

Yep, looks like there was a mistake sorry Darl. :-)

The Small Victories..... (0)

michael path (94586) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401557)

One small step for Man, One giant leap for Mand----

Technicality: TSCOG instead of TSG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9401603)

The Santa Cruz Operation Group.

Keep it at least consistent, if we're to lazy and abbreviate everything.

Quick ... (2, Interesting)

vlad_petric (94134) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401633)

Borrow SCO shares. Borrowing shares is the way of making money when you predict the stock price will go down. You basically get shares, dump them, and after a pre-established period, re-purchase them and give them back to the original owner. If the stock goes down, you make money. If it went up, you'd lose.

From a moral perspective, by borrowing shares now you'd be making money of the people who bet against Linux.

Has anyone read the groklaw article? (0, Redundant)

MudflapSoftware (773087) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401636)


The judge DENIED the DEFENDANT'S (NOVELL) motion to DISMISS the case.

The judge is clearly leaning in favor of Novell (as it should), but this fight is not totally over.

Novell (5, Insightful)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401650)

What happens if there's a management turnover at Novel and the new guys in charge decide to take up the SCO litigation business model only with the added benefit that these decisions show they own the copyrights?

In some ways I find it bothersome that these cases are being fought along lines other than "Can someone who's worked on or licensed Unix ever legally contribute to Open Source".

Yes, I realize that it's an insane from the perspective of a computer scholar, but that doesn't mean that court rulings could change the legal reality.

It's great that SCO is being euthanized from these legal proceedings, but recall that it wasn't too long ago that SCO was an big open source ally and proponent. Will Novel be next to fall to bad management, investment pandering, and absurd legal advice?

Darl McBride on the BBC (5, Funny)

ctid (449118) | more than 10 years ago | (#9401664)

I just caught the end of a Darl McBride interview on the BBC. Unfortunately reception was a bit poor, but what I think he said was,
"And I for one welcome our new Novell overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted CEO, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground SUSE caves."
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...