Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Denied Motion To Change IBM Case Again

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the get-it-over-with dept.

The Courts 174

Rob writes "SCO Group Inc's attempt to change its legal case against IBM Corp for the third time has been denied by the judge, who has also set the two companies a deadline to present their respective evidence with specificity. Despite repeated public declarations that it has evidence Linux contains Unix code that infringes its copyright, SCO has yet to present any evidence to the court." Bad news for them all around, lately.

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

1992 Called... (0, Troll)

1992 Called (893858) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989607)

apparently SCO wasn't cool then either.

LP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989611)

Last post!!1

WTF? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989616)

Was /. just /.ed or what?

503 all the way baby (-1, Offtopic)

patrat (443579) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989619)

yeah

What!? (4, Funny)

ShaniaTwain (197446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989623)

Since when can you not change your case multiple times over the years? And since when do they have to show evidence? Isn't SCO's word good enough? This is a travesty! There is no justice!

Re:What!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989841)

Testing...

Re:What!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989946)

DAJDAJ

Yes, yesterday. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989626)

Slashdot slowly catching up though. Good job guys!

Re:Yes, yesterday. (0)

baomike (143457) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989878)

Hey , give em a break, it was a looooong weekend, and recovery can be slooooow.

Bad news? Why? (2, Informative)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989633)

SCO Group Inc's attempt to change its legal case against IBM Corp for the third time has been denied by the judge, who has also set the two companies a deadline to present their respective evidence with specificity. **snip** Bad news all around, lately.

Ok, why exactly is this bad news? Sounds like what we've all been screaming for. The judge finally says "put up or shut up - no more delays!"

Unless I'm reading it wrong. Am I?

Re:Bad news? Why? (3, Informative)

TheTiGuR (115921) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989653)

I believe either the tags were left out, or the bad news is in referral to bad news for SCO, not bad news for Linux.

Re:Bad news? Why? (4, Insightful)

Little Pink Bunny (881651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989662)

The sarcastic implication being that it's bad news for SCO. Kind of like when an obnoxious player on the opposite team sprains an ankle: "aww, tough luck, buddy."

Re:Bad news? Why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989695)

give up while you can.. americans can not detect sarcasm at all for some reason ;)

Re:Bad news? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989777)

No, it's just rude to be sarcastic.

Re:Bad news? Why? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989798)

That sadly is true. There's an American on my MSc course in the UK who doesn't seem to understand sarcasm at all, we have to keep telling him we're not being serious, and then he usually says "oh you were being ironic". I gave up explaining the difference between the two after a few attempts.

Re:Bad news? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989937)

Yeah american is teh dumb, just like there presidant.

Re:Bad news? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990014)

I wouldn't put it like that. It's just a very different culture to here.

Offtopic but maybe USA should split into 2 or 3 separate countries: west coast, centre, east coast or just coasts as one. It would stop the bickering over "moral" values and make the world a safer place.

Re:Bad news? Why? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990242)

We tried that once, but then Lincoln had to go and drag all those bloody red states back into the Union.... :-D

(Lincoln, the -Liberal- Republican, of the party that later became the modern-day Democratic Party, as opposed to the modern-day Republican Party that derives its roots primarily from the Whigs.)

Re:Bad news? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990019)

You do know that the definition of sarcasm is "bitter speech intended to hurt".. where as being verbally ironic is where you say the opposite of what is intended (such as in the example above of the field player).

Re:Bad news? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990172)

In that example yeah you are correct, but a fuller definition is "the use of remarks which clearly mean the opposite of what they say, and which are made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in an amusing way". The amusement part is the important part of the definition, although sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Re:Bad news? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990192)

not true - that's just part of the definition. Other parts are :

Sarcasm : ... a taunt. esp. one ironically worded.
Taunt : ... 3. A smart or clever rejoinder, a jesting or witty quip.

Then please explain. (4, Interesting)

gumpish (682245) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990158)

But the other "bad news" that is linked is GOOD for SCO. (Novels motion for dismissal in SCO's slander suit against them is denied.)

Re:Then please explain. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990259)

Yeah. This is odd. We seem to see the judge refusing to allow SCO to strengthen their case, but still insisting that it has enough strength to go forward (which seems doubtful).

Is this being decided by this same judge, or will it be heard by a panel of judges and/or jury in the end?

Re:Bad news? Why? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989663)

It's bad for SCO. :) It's probably bad for anyone getting paid for time spent on the case. :) Other than that, I can't think of anyone it is actually bad for. Except maybe dentists, as there won't be so much gnashing of teeth at the delays.

Re:Bad news? Why? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989701)

No idea what it said before, but right now the "Bad news" links to the slashdot article where Novell's judge declined to kill the SCO vs. Novell lawsuit. So "Bad news all around" means that everyone's got their share of bad news no matter whose side you're on.

HEY NIGGER! YER MASSA CALLED, HE SAID (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989711)

COOK me up some COLLARD GREENS! faggot

Why are you using bold font? That's very black. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989861)

COOK me up some COLLARD GREENS! faggot

Whites are suppose to use italics, because they are weak girly-girl pansies. Your Collard Greens are in burried in my stool in the latrine. Bon Appetite.

Asshole.

Re:Bad news? Why? (4, Insightful)

JerryBruckheimer (896257) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989764)

I'd say it's bad news all around because the case won't go to trial until 2007. 2007! How SCO has been able to stretch this case out until 2007 is beyond me.

Re:Bad news? Why? (1)

sivadnitsuj (469527) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989779)

I read the summary the same way at first, and was puzzled.

a beer or two later, and it made sense:
bad news [for them] all around, lately.

Re:Bad news? Why? (1)

jhines (82154) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989818)

Bad news to the SCO group in court.

For the rest of us, in that the court refused to put the dying beast out of its, and our misery.

Re:Bad news? Why? (3, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989849)

Ok, why exactly is this bad news?
Because I spent my lunch money today on a thousand shares of SCO! If the case has to proceed as planned instead of dragging on further, I can kiss that $8.51 goodbye. I shoulda had the burrito plate instead. What was I thinking?!

Re:Bad news? Why? (0, Troll)

TWX (665546) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990143)

"Ok, why exactly is this bad news?"
"Because I spent my lunch money today on a thousand shares of SCO! If the case has to proceed as planned instead of dragging on further, I can kiss that $8.51 goodbye. I shoulda had the burrito plate instead. What was I thinking?!"

Yeah, you could have enjoyed that burrito at least twice. Once going in, and the second time when you get to see the look on the faces of those who are stuck being around you eight hours later...

Re:Bad news? Why? (2, Insightful)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989965)

I read this as:
Bad news for SCO group all around. Which I feel it is.

All depends on context.

Re:Bad news? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990007)

Just another reason editor's notes shouldn't be included. I doubt editors are clueless, but this comment doesn't prove it.

Most of the time, it is like the guy who tries to add something to a conversation just to be in the conversation. Adding nothing but fulfilling an ego.

read again (2, Informative)

KZigurs (638781) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990121)

"Bad news __for them__".

nuff said.

Prove What, Again? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989635)

When has vaporware is ever been proven to exist? The case needs to stick to the facts.

Inverse vaporware (2, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989722)

It's a kind of weird inverse vaporware: the code exists, and runs, but you can't know where it is. Ordinary vaporware you know where it is (inside the offices at Duke Nukem Forever) but you have no idea what it looks like.

/. down? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989636)

Is it just me, or was /. down for a few? Travis sucks teh b4llz0rz.

He won't be unemployed long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989638)

Darl should not worry about loss of income.

He already proved that he is a hell of a soap story writer. The MPIAA will gladly embrace him when this little mess is over.

Maybe I drink too much coffee.

Why is their stock nonzero? (5, Interesting)

Little Pink Bunny (881651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989642)

I don't really invest beyond my 401K and a few other small things, so I don't really understand what's going on with their share price. Why is it not much lower than it is? I understand the "unlimited upside, negligible downside" idea, but it seems like that upside is rapidly vanishing with no good news likely on the horizon.

Don't investors typically eventually say "ain't gonna happen" and walk away? Is there an obvious reason why this hasn't happened yet?

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (5, Informative)

Chmarr (18662) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989710)

SCOX is no longer a standard, retail-invested stock. The stock is EXCEEDINGLY lightly traded, likely only being held my insiders and investment houses, both scared what will happen to the stock if they unloaded.

Or... perhaps, they're saying. 'If I try to sell this, it'll plumment to near-zero solely on my measly holdings. I might as well just hang onto it just in case something interesting happens with the case'.

In short... this is NOT a normal stock anymore. I've given up keeping an eye on it and praying for its collapse. I'm neither long, nor short, but I simply don't want the insiders to make money on this. It'll probably hover around the $3.50-$4 mark right up until the company is liquidated.

I take heart in the fact that NOONE can offload any significant portion of this stock without it crashing.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (4, Insightful)

MrLint (519792) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989865)

I still say IBM wait for SCOs stock to totally crash, buy up all the assets and then open source (id prefer bsd license) the whole of Unix. its the only proper way to add insult to injury.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989914)

I still say IBM wait for SCOs stock to totally crash, buy up all the assets and then open source (id prefer bsd license) the whole of Unix. its the only proper way to add insult to injury.

That assumes that SCO owns the copyrights to UNIX. It may not, as there is a court case going on with Novell over that very issue.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990080)

Where is the "+2 Evil" mod when you need it?

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (2, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989716)

Because you'll still see longshot speculators who have cash to burn buying up stock in the tiny miniscule chance that a miracle will occur. To that kind of investor, it's like playing the lotto, if they lose... oh well, pick different numbers next week.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (4, Insightful)

Dav3K (618318) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989746)

Problem is, if you are caught holding the stock today, you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone who will buy it. Also, much of the stock is held by people like Ransom Love, who have other reasons for hanging on to it. Being principle shareholder in a dead company can be handy if you have plans on re-forming.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (4, Interesting)

evilquaker (35963) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990112)

Problem is, if you are caught holding the stock today, you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone who will buy it.

A third of the float is sold short [yahoo.com] (Note "Short % of Float" under Share Statistics). Those shorts will have to buy eventually. So I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of traders are holding hoping for a quick double. Once the shorts start covering, it might shoot up quite quickly as they all try to lock in their profits.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (1)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990119)

Problem is, if you are caught holding the stock today, you are going to be hard pressed to find anyone who will buy it.

Actually, there are people who will buy it. Otherwise SCOX's stock wouldn't be at $3.70/share. It would be at zero.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990201)

Actually, there are people who will buy it. Otherwise SCOX's stock wouldn't be at $3.70/share. It would be at zero.

Not true. The stock price is a reflection of the last traded price for a stock, it has no bearing on what the current bid and sell prices are. For something as thinly traded as SCOX is, there could concievably be NO buyers at any price - hence no price move, as no trades are executed. What is much more likely though, is that yes, there are buyers, (shorts who are covering), or random trades by speculators.

Ransom Love doesn't own _any_ SCOX (3, Insightful)

Error27 (100234) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990124)

Ransom Love sold all his stock when the lawsuit started. link [eweek.com]

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989822)

Well, if you take a look at it's performance over the last couple of years, you'll see that it started a fall near the end of 2003 and has never recovered from that. It has traded below $5 a share for pretty much the last calendar year.

The reason investors don't walk away is because at this point, there probably aren't any more. It's people who are stuck with the stock and can't find anyone to sell it to, or people who are hoping for the litigation version of Powerball to kick in.

Kierthos

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (1)

inkey string (35594) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989839)

A stock does not just represent a share of future earnings - it represents a share of ownership in the company.

Companies have cash in the bank, real estate holdings, computers, etc - all assets that can be liquidated for real cash. The reason this stock still has value is because the company still has value - albeit not much.

There is little "growth" value left for lack of a better term. However, SCO's real measurable assets have a value >0, which is why the stock is not 0.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (1)

bani (467531) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989867)

However, SCO's real measurable assets have a value >0, which is why the stock is not 0.

If you read the recent SCO filings, you realize this may no longer be the case very soon.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (2, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989895)

A stock does not just represent a share of future earnings - it represents a share of ownership in the company.

Yes, but the valuation of the company depends upon its future earnings potential and the value of the stock relates to a fraction of that.

A company may have lots of assets, but if it is losing money such that its assets will soon be worthless and the management are not going to shut it down before bankruptsy, then the value of the assets matters little. All that matters is what cash shareholders can get from the company now or in the future.

Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (2, Insightful)

puzzled (12525) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989863)


There are two views on SCOX's value being at $4.00 or so.

The first says look at the treasury - divide cash on hand by number of shares and that is what its worth. This strikes me as foolish.

The second says look at the value of the Unix revenue streams. Laugh at OpenServer all you want, but there are lots and lots of IVR apps out there that work just fine. This also apparently produces a value of about $4/share.

I hear there are M&A brokerages taking positions in the company - these are the vultures that will pick the bones.

Go to Yahoo, search for symbol SCOX, and read the board - stats_for_all probably has the best handle on what is happening, but you have to be a soopergenius to digest it all ...

Where it all ends (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989665)

There's a lot of discussion on Groklaw about what happens when tSCOg goes bankrupt.

The minute tSCOg loses the first of the many cases it has going, it goes bankrupt. Its fate is then in the hands of the bankrupcy trustee and the creditors. My guess is that all the cases then get settled out of court on terms agreeable to the creditors. In the case of IBM this means a declaration that Linux is totally unemcumbered by anyone's Unix IP.

Re:Where it all ends (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989713)

In the case of IBM this means a declaration that Linux is totally unemcumbered by anyone's Unix IP.

You mean unencumbered by IP that can be licensed by SCO.

Oh, this is too funny (0, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989727)

That the only comment so far moded as +5 Interesting is the one that points at a Groklaw discussion.

Oh, man, both comments and moderators on /. are more relevant today than they will ever be, and this is not a joke!

I bet Sun buys SCO (4, Interesting)

team99parody (880782) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989771)

My guess is that the creditors auction off SCO's assets (which include any remaining contested IP) to the highest bidder.

I furthermore guess that this bidder will be Sun, because it's a major licensee of SCO IP and would ABSOLUTELY NOT want to be in a position of having it's Solaris based on the IP of any other potential acquiror.

Then we'll have some peace for a while, as whomever ends up owning this IP will not have the stomach to continue the lawsuit; but it'll stay in some uncontested limbo forever.

Other reasons why I think it'll be Sun: Some of sun's management like to see themselves as an operating-systems-IP company. They want to own the part of SCO that IBM licensed to be better positioned in their "IP sharing partnership" with Microsoft. etc.

I bet that doesn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989831)

Auctioning off the assets is by no means automatic. The creditors have to agree. My guess is that given who the creditors are (IBM for instance), that ain't going to happen.

Re:I bet that doesn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989851)

You don't think Darl can rack up enough debt that his buddies like Boise Schiller & Flexner would be the biggest creditors?

Re:I bet Sun buys SCO (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989919)

Most likely, the IP will wind up with Novell, due to SCO's successor not wanting to get into a copyright battle with Novell based on SCO's insane legal theories and implausible interpretations of contracts. The evidence in SCO v. Novell on SCO's side is sufficiently good for SCO to try to make a case out of it, because they have nothing to lose, but it's nowhere near good enough for anyone with assets vulnerable to a countersuit. If Sun wants the UNIX copyrights, they'd do better to wait until SCO goes away and then buy them from Novell than buy SCO's position.

Re:I bet Sun buys SCO (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989952)

I thought that Sun had bought out the rights a long time ago, something even more ironclad than what IBM had (and SCO subsequently tried to revoke).

Any help here?

Go, SCO, go! Go, SCO, go! Go, SCO, go! (0, Troll)

GET THE FACTS! (850779) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989669)

SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO! SCO!

134j1#413245lk439871$#!@$%!lasdkfjqew987134!@#$j as df9817234lkjasdf1238741234hasdflkqweuroasdhf123489 67asdf9871lk34asdfnvcxuiqerladshf12746

And Linux is DYING.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like TROLLING.

Bad news all around (3, Funny)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989671)

Bad news all around

Not sure what planet Rob and Zonk are from, but to most of us this is good news.

Re:Bad news all around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989797)

If you read it in context you can see they mean... Bad news all around "for sco"

Re:Bad news all around (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990011)

Bad news all around

Not sure what planet Rob and Zonk are from, but to most of us this is good news.


Nice try, but it reads Bad news for them all around

Re:Bad news all around (2, Funny)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990069)

Yes, and originally it said "Bad news all around". They updated it. Because it was, you know, confusing and shit.

Kierthos

Re:Bad news all around (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990190)

Not sure what planet Rob and Zonk are from

Planet Doopmore in the MissSpalleng System.

Let's face it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989690)

this issue is not going to go away until:
1. Microsoft runs out of money (not likely until the next millenium)
OR
2. the courts run out of patience (let's hope that this story is an indication of this!)

Fuck 'em. Just fuck 'em! This case didn't have any validity in the beginning and it doesn't have any now. It is simply an exercise in Microsoft trying to mold public opinion.

2007??? (2, Informative)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989702)

The cbronline.com article says the SCO/IBM case will drag out at least through February 2007! Does that sound excessive to anyone besides me?

I guess /. will have plenty of future front page material.

Re:2007??? (1)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989853)

So that means SCO will be dead by 2007 or so. I hope they hold a public selling of the furnishings. It would be fun to put together some money to buy Daryl's chair and donate it to Linus, for example.

Re:2007??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989943)

It would be fun to put together some money to buy Daryl's chair and donate it to Linus, for example.

What do you have against Linus?

It appears the judge is no longer neutral. (-1, Troll)

NRAdude (166969) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989709)

When the judge abandons neutrality and controlls the process of the court, then there is bias.

Yet, technically there exists no plaintiff and no defendant because there is no filed claim of damages; just because the court case says "PLAINTIFF" and "DEFENDANT" doesn't mean it is settled to that. At the moment, there is an unverified COMPLAINANT known as SCO.

The judges act more like executive administrators more and more every day... And to think they always demand to presume them "HONORABLE". Not to fuss over the most miniscule of details, but I don't walk around demanding people think I am impeached of all honor unless someone refers to me as Honorable Gregory. Surely, I prefer and presume among people the greatest of respect as a brother while no less a neighbor. :D Police officers don't show joy in me calling them brothers and sisters, and that's a self-evident fact when I'm approached for their re-venue attempts.

Um... please clarify (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989887)

This was written by a Markov chain generator, wasn't it?

Re:It appears the judge is no longer neutral. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989991)

Well, if you've ever watched parlement in Canada, the UK or anywhere else, the word "honourable" takes on an entirely different meaning.

Re:It appears the judge is no longer neutral. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990239)

You, sir, are an honourable gentleman.

Why they couldn't amend their complaint (5, Insightful)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989715)

Judge Kimball is on to them.

We non-lawyers think of judges as impartial watchers of the courtroom. Sometimes they are. Most of the time, though, they pick a winner and spend the rest of the case guiding the decision the way they think it should go and covering themselves for appeal.

That's how it's been with SCO v IBM. After months and months without any credible evidence, after seeing the SCO group twist his words and the words of Magistrate Judge Wells (who's handling much of the pre-trial bickering), he began to take on a more aggressive tone. He hasn't been on IBM's side, but it looks like he has seen the inevitable result and is trying to make sure his decision doesn't get turned over on appeal.

So when The SCO Group tried to amend their complaint based on an out-of-context reading of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim (a request for a ruling that IBM didn't infringe SCO's copyrights), he said no, that the counterclaim must be read in context. He said they were just delaying. if he thought they had a snowball's chance in July, he might have allowed the change.

SCO what? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989733)

SCO's new motto:

No evidence, no customers, no future.

(And the only way you can convince me that Daryl McBride isn't a worthless cunt is by providing a signed statement from a gynacologist)

Re:SCO what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990078)

Do you know what kind of a fucking retards you appear to be when you keep spelling his name incorrectly?

DARL MCBRIDE you illiterate twit.

Re:SCO what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12990136)

Not to mention when he spells "gynecologist" incorrectly.

Frankly I think he made himself look more like "a f**king retards" [sic] when he referred to McBride as a "c*nt". That's an insult to women, on more than one level.

I must disagree with you most heartily. (1)

merc (115854) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990214)

I believe Daryl [sic] McBride to be a most
worthwhile vagina.

Groklaw has a lot more... (5, Insightful)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989759)

Obviously, but in addition to denying SCO's motion to Amend, Judge Kimball also set a date this Fall by which SCO must declare with specifity the items on which it will be relying to make its case.

And that friends, is where the nuts hit the grinder.

SCO has yet to present any evidence to the court. (0, Troll)

Horny Smurf (590916) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989776)

... And Zonk has yet to present any evidence that he isn't a taco-snotting, homosexual pedophile!

IBM? Who the fuck uses IBM? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989784)

Welcome to 1990! Have you listened Winger's new album, "In the Heart of the Young"? Dammit, I'm out of Coke II!!

Fuck IBM and you stupid PC using fucks. Apple is the future.

Press Release (3, Funny)

pjrc (134994) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989787)

SCO Group, The True Owners of all Unix Intellectual Property, announced today that they were pleased with Judge Kimball's ruling. CEO Darl McBride apeared upbeat, commenting "This new ruling will allow us to focus on IBM's illegal misconduct and hasten the resolution of our intellectual property claims".

Company spokesperson Blake Stonewell took a more conservative posture. "Of course we would have prefered to present recently discovered new evidence of IBM's further misappropriation of our intellectual property to the Power architecture". Stonewell further added "this ruling is actually a major victory for us. IBM has consistently resisted any depositions of upper management, who orchestrated the wholesale theft of our code and trade secrets for inclusion in the derivitive linux kernel".

Bert Young, Chief Financial Officer of the SCO Group said "we are pleased by the now definitive revised schedule", and added "because legal fees have been capped for the duration of this trail and any appeals, we believe now concentrating on this already well establish course of action will best serve SCO's shareholders. We look forward to the final resolution of this suit, and the opportunity to expand our SCOsource licensing revenue."

About SCO

The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit www.sco.com.

SCO, and the associated SCO logo, are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.

This news release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from the expectations contained herein. The forward-looking statements contained herein include statements about the consummation of the transaction with SCO and benefits of the pending transaction with SCO. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described herein include the inability to obtain regulatory approvals and the inability to successfully integrate the SCO business. GNAA is under no obligation to (and expressly disclaims any such obligation to) update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

Troll? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989883)

From the last line, emphasis added:

GNAA is under no obligation to (and expressly disclaims any such obligation to) update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

The sad thing is, I could've believed that & almost spent a minute looking on PR Newswire for it...

What the .... Oh. (1)

Evil Pete (73279) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990212)

Sorry, but I got about 2/3 of the way through this before I realised this is not a parody. Funny and disturbing.

Well, see, here is the prob (2, Funny)

bosewicht (805330) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989790)

SCO: Sorry Judge, we have the proof, but see it's on a WinFS computer right now, and see we kinda need more time. Cuz well, the computer is really far away see, and I tried to put it on this usb stick, but the computers here, close by, can't read WinFS yet. See? So we are going to kinda have to postpone this thingy until Longhorn....errr, I mean MS releases the WinFS updates. But in the meantime, can we kinda change our arguments, then we can come back to this later?

"Bad news for them all around, lately." (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989795)

SCO *IS* bad news

In other news: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989805)

A woman astrologer in former Soviet Russia is suing SCO for giving the lawsuit game a bad image.

Daleks (1)

kote-men-do (881870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989876)

SCO is like the Daleks. They just won't die.

Re:Daleks (1)

mikael (484) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990005)

Not unless you can find a human who has looked into the heart of the Tardis. Then they will just melt away like ice in Spring.

Sorry, Tears for Fears (2, Funny)

Dark Coder (66759) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989907)

Short!
Short!
Let it ride out
These are the things you can do without
Come on
I'm shorting on you
Come on

In crapping times
You shouldn't have to pump up your stocks
In up and downs
We really ought to know
Those one track minds
That took you for a sucker boy
Kiss your ass goodbye

We shouldn't have to jump for joy
but we will defintely will short your joy

(Chorus)

Unix gave you life
And in return you gave them hell
As cold as ice
I hope you live to tell the tale
I hope you live to tell the tale

(Chorus)

And when you've think you've got it locked
IBM could wear you down
We really love to break your heart
We really love to break your heart

(Chorus)

Re:Sorry, Tears for Fears (1)

EugeneK (50783) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989931)

<voice name="nelson muntz">HA HA! [passagen.se] Your motion got denied!</voice>

About time (1)

wind_ice_flames (894250) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989944)

It is about time that this got resolved. Either IBM wins and we continue to enjoy Linux or SCO wins(yeah right) and we start using BSD or a stripped Linux that has to be rebuilt. Although I prefer option 1.

it's time for a summary judgement (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989955)

from the bench in this one. no evidence + inability to make the same argument twice + inability to do anything with the discovery evidence from the other party = goons without a case.

SCO has no assets, no case, no future.

so, I suppose, some pinhead dude from Wail Streak will start pumping SCO stock hard any day now. that is a sure sign, folks...

Compare and contrast (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12989970)

The coverage that SCO got in the media when they claimed that Linux had stolen code in it was enormous. Not only did they get tons of coverage with a resulting boost to their stock price, but dozens of professional opinion expressers signed their NDA and gave statements to the effect that SCO's case was a slam dunk and that Linux was full of stolen code. Years later after yet another clear sign that SCO in fact has NO evidence, the press is almost entirely silent on the issue.

So either noone cares that SCO basically used the press to execute a brilliant pump and dump scheme against the entire industry (which would be a notable story by itself), or the press has a definite anti-Linux bias. Either way, the press has a lot to answer for in this case.

Brief synopsis (5, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12989988)

Groklaw [groklaw.net] has more indepth analysis on what was reported.

Basically when Santa Cruz and IBM worked on the project known as Monterey in the late 90s, it was understood that both companies would use code developed from the joint venture in their products. SCO claims that IBM used the jointly developed code on Power based machines when the original agreement only specified that IBM could use it on Intel machines. They filed in October 2004 to change the claim to add this to the current suit. They wanted more discovery and time to pursue this new claim.

In the current lawsuit, the deadline for changing the claim was February 2004. Under certain circumstances, a party can go beyond deadlines but only for "compelling reasons." SCO's compelling reason was (1) they "just discovered" this fact and (2) IBM filed a counterclaim (9th) that requires them to research it.

IBM's answer to the court was convincing and many fold. They produce documents, emails, presentations, public announcements from Santa Cruz as far back as 1998 that describe how IBM was to use code from the joint project in Power. They also produce IBM public presentations, software documentation, and public announcements about the same thing. Finally they presented industry reports and discussions from tech magazines both online and offline from 2000 that discusses IBM's use of the code. IBM ironically points out that SCO provided some of this source material to IBM in the lawsuit filings.

IBM's message is simple: (1) Santa Cruz knew. If SCO is the legal and corporate successor to Santa Cruz, then it is SCO's duty to know everything that Santa Cruz did. (2) Since SCO provided some of the material, SCO had to know since 2003 when they filed the lawsuit. (3) Even if SCO was totally clueless about Santa Cruz's materials and it's own filings, a simple search online up to 4 years ago would have uncovered the fact that IBM was going to use the code in Power.

As far IBM's 9th Counterclaim, IBM chose to reduce/clarify the scope so that it was not as broad and SCO's new claim would have no relevance.

On a side note, one of IBM's statements is interesting:

Tellingly, in support of its contention that the addition of this new copyright infringement claim would not require extensive additional discovery, SCO purports in its current motion (and in its proposed complaint) to have already analyzed its own UnixWare/SVR4 code and IBM's AIX code and identified 245,026 specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UnixWare/SVR4 in IBM's AIX for Power Version 5.1.0 and 260,785 specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UnixWare/SVR4 in IBM's AIX for Power Version 5.2.0. At the same time, of course, SCO continues to maintain -- both in opposition to IBM's pending motion for summary judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim and in support of SCO's discovery motions pending before Magistrate Judge Wells -- that SCO is unable, without significant additional discovery from IBM and potentially thousands of additional man-years of expert work, to identify the specific lines of "copied and derived code" from UNIX that it claims is present in Linux. Indeed, SCO argued before this Court and Judge Wells that it could not capably perform any code comparisons between UNIX and Linux in a reasonable time frame without access to more discovery from IBM (concerning AIX no less).

SCO wanted to convince the judge that no more discovery would be necessary to add this new claim saying that they had already done a lot of work. But IBM asks the question: If they have compared our closed source AIX with their Unix, why do they claim they couldn't compare open source Linux with their Unix without our AIX source code?

Time to short SCO (1)

kublikhan (838265) | more than 9 years ago | (#12990127)

Seems to me like this company is going to tank within the next 2 years. Might be a good time to short their stock and hope for a delisting/bankruptcy. What happens to a short position when a company is delisted: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/082803. asp [investopedia.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?