SCO Denied Motion To Change IBM Case Again 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.
What!? (Score:5, Funny)
Bad news? Why? (Score:2, Informative)
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? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:2)
(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? (Score:2)
1) The issue becomes unimportant
2) The issue is resolved and one side wins out
3) The issue stays unresolved and different aspects of the issue dominate
That's how you get parties switching positions.
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:2)
At the risk of getting modded "offtopic" again, what is sad is that the parties do not seem to stick to their "core principles" and are willing to shift over and become what used to be their "worst enemy". It speaks volumes to corruptibilty of politics and short memories of those involved.
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:2)
Maybe part of the problem is Americans seem to think a society based on the least commo
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:2)
Never
Sarcasm, Americans and the written word (Score:2)
I thought it was something slightly different... that they don't tend to pitch their voices differently at all when they are being sarcastic
Ok I think you've actually hit on it there. Tough to pitch your voice when you're typing.
For example, am I being sarcastic with the following:
"That's a good idea."
Now, there's at least two ways to say the above. Stress the "good" and you're being positive. Stress the "That's" and you could sound sarcastic.
Unfortunately... both look the same when you type.
Then please explain. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Then please explain. (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:2)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:1)
a beer or two later, and it made sense:
bad news [for them] all around, lately.
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:2)
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? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, we've established that relationship. What I want to know is when are they going to find the burrito in the SCO case?
Re:Bad news? Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad news for SCO group all around. Which I feel it is.
All depends on context.
read again (Score:3, Informative)
nuff said.
Prove What, Again? (Score:2)
Inverse vaporware (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Inverse vaporware (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Inverse vaporware (Score:2)
Re:Prove What, Again? (Score:2)
Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:2)
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:2)
Microsoft is not taking over SCO or themselves directly providing the business because it would show Microsoft sponsorship of the lawsuit. But investing the money throu
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Shorts dont have to buy to cover, if ... (Score:2)
I am currently short on this stock and planning to stay short as long as it takes. Most of the shorts I know are planning to stay short until the very end. And the end is near for SCO as they are running out of money fast.
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
Ransom Love doesn't own _any_ SCOX (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:1)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
If you read the recent SCO filings, you realize this may no longer be the case very soon.
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:3, Informative)
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 shareho
Re:Why is their stock nonzero? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 vu
Where it all ends (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean unencumbered by IP that can be licensed by SCO.
Oh, this is too funny (Score:1, Offtopic)
Oh, man, both comments and moderators on
I bet Sun buys SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I bet Sun buys SCO (Score:2)
Re:I bet Sun buys SCO (Score:2)
Any help here?
Re:Where it all ends (Score:2)
Bad news all around (Score:4, Funny)
Not sure what planet Rob and Zonk are from, but to most of us this is good news.
Re:Bad news all around (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
Kierthos
No It's Not (Score:2)
While some might see this as a new era of harm
2007??? (Score:1, Informative)
I guess
Re:2007??? (Score:2)
Why they couldn't amend their complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Dad is a Federal circuit court judge (former Chief Judge of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals) and my cousin is on the Michigan state bench. That's the Honorable David R. Hansen and the Honorable Katherine L. Hansen, respectively. Dad was appointed to the state bench in 1976 by the (Republican) Governor Robert Ray; he was appointed to the Federal bench for the District of Northern Iowa in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan; he was appointed to the appellate bench by President George H.W. Bush. Officially, Dad has no political party--he's not allowed to, as part of the Federal code of judicial ethics--but I think you can probably figure out from his appointment history that Teddy Kennedy doesn't send him Christmas cards.
My cousin Katherine, on the other hand, was appointed to the Michigan state bench by Governor Jennifer M. Granholm. Governor Granholm, as you are no doubt aware, is so far in the left wing of the Democratic Party that she was honored with floor time at the last National Convention. I'm not sure whether her judicial ethics allow her to have a party affiliation or not, but... you can draw your own conclusions.
Why does this matter? Because whether I look at a Federal judge repeatedly appointed by Republicans, or whether I look at a State judge appointed by a dyed-in-the-wool lefty Democrat, I see the same thing: namely, brother, you are wrong, and have no idea just how wrong you are.
Judges try very hard to be impartial in all hearings... impartial to the point of rudeness. If you step into court and claim that the sky is blue, both Dad and Katherine will interrupt you to ask whether you're going to introduce meterologic testimony into the record attesting to that fact. (Well, Katherine would probably have the good grace to wait until you were finished. Dad's approach is the kinder of the two, though; when Katherine quietly pulls the rug out from under your feet, thoroughly confounding the last ten minutes of your argument, you long for the rough kindness of an interruption.)
It makes it hell trying to have normal conversations with them, by the by; they have a very hard time disengaging from judicial-think. When I say that I think I did well on an exam, Dad wants to know precisely what evidence leads me to that conclusion. When I talk to Katherine and mention that I have a paper submitted to Black Hat 2005, Katherine doesn't say "that's nice"; she insists that I sit her down and teach her enough computational theory so that she can decide for herself my odds of getting published.
Both of them live and die by a mantra: neither one of them gives half a damn what you know, they only care what you can prove.
Nor are they "watchers" of the court in any sense. They are the administrators of the court. They're the ones who decide the ground rules of the court hearing. They decide these ground rules based on pleadings; attorneys for one side say that under one Supreme Court ruling, the standard for evidence should be this, while attorneys for the other side say that decision didn't foresee this particular eventuality and it should be discarded. Only a fool would claim they are "watchers". They are not combatants in the courtroom, in the sense of trial lawyers, no, but they are both the arbiters of fairness and the executors of decisions. If you're able to convince the judge of a fact, then brother, your job is done. At that point the other attorney isn't fighting you anymore, he's fighting the judge, and that's a fight the other lawyer is--with greater than 90% certainty--going to lose.
Impartiality is difficult to attain. The best solution judges have found, either on the Left or on the Right, is ruthless, r
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, quit laughing. I know that judges are impartial (or "apartial", which is a distinction without a difference). But once the trial starts, they know who's got it and who doesn't. They intentionally keep their minds open - judicial think, you called it.
A mind isn't open if it isn't processing what it's being given. They don't give a ruling before all the evidence is in, but much of the time the ruling would be no different if they did.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a "sometimes they're impartial".
And they're not "watchers".
And if you think either is true, then you don't understand the judiciary at all. Those are two glaring, egregious errors to make.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Judges always strive to manage the case in such a manner that all parties receive a fair trial. As long as all parties receive a fair trial, no appeal will be successful.
Part of fairness is making no decision before its time. Judges do not make decisions on facts before it's necessary to make those decisions. E.g., it may be necessary to decide whether evidence was col
Re:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a facist, communist, or a feudalist shouldn't make you guilty or not guilty - or change what was meant by the constitution. Sure, there may be borderline cases where that reflects your leanings but, while they may be interesting cases, they shouldn't be *that* far reaching.
I think the issue that causes is that in some circles, and some judges, this becomes less true. Some low, some high. So
Re:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:2)
Thanks for the interesting explanation. I'm not saying I believe it completely (in the spirit of dogged skepticism), but I hope that it was mostly accurate because it's the most hopeful thing I've read in some time.
Re: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:2)
In view of which, it seems churlish to criticise your maths, but your conclusions seem overstated:
Re: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. (Score:2)
I made another goof. Generally speaking, Dad's colleagues don't wear their appointments on their sleeve. New judges come on and old judges retire, and the dynamic changes from year to year. Since the last time I bothered to learn the political makeup of the court, President Bush has appointed a few new judges. It's now significantly skewed towards Republican appo
Re:Why they couldn't amend their complaint (Score:2)
SCO what? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:2)
Indeed. Cunts are useful.
Cheers
Stor
Groklaw has a lot more... (Score:5, Insightful)
And that friends, is where the nuts hit the grinder.
Press Release (Score:3, Funny)
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.
What the .... Oh. (Score:2)
Sorry, but I got about 2/3 of the way through this before I realised this is not a parody. Funny and disturbing.
Re:What the .... Oh. (Score:2)
Jun 22, 2005 SCO Releases Major Upgrade With SCO OpenServer 6
Found here. [sco.com]
The scary thing is that most anyone can spin bad news just like SCO would. If you read enough BS coming out of Utah, eventually you know the pattern.
Re:What the .... Oh. (Score:2)
I copied-n-pasted the "about sco" and forward looking statements from some real press releases.... so at least those parts were real.
Re:What the .... Oh. (Score:2)
Well, see, here is the prob (Score:2, Funny)
"Bad news for them all around, lately." (Score:1)
In other news: (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry, Tears for Fears (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Never again (Score:2)
From SCO's perspective, it probably would have been just as well to have been delisted. I'm still not sure if getting delisted wasn't their real plan for this year, but they chickened out for some reason.
it's time for a summary judgement (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Compare and contrast (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Compare and contrast (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Compare and contrast (Score:2)
Many (most?)
Brief synopsis (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
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?
Re:Brief synopsis (Score:2, Informative)
IBM didn't choose to limit their 9th counterclaim as you say, SCO took the counterclaim out of context.
When the lawsuit first started, SCO attempted to terminate IBM's Unix license which allowed IBM to distribute AIX. Novell stepped in and gave IBM the go-ahead to continue to distribute AIX, which they were specifically allowed to do, regardless of whether or not they own the copyrights, by the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation (not the same as The SCO Group, 2 different com
Re:Brief synopsis (Score:2)
1) Lawyers don't review and compare code. Computer experts do. SCO's employee Sandeep Gupta declared that he found identical or similar code in IBM's code versus Unix System V. IBM hired Randall Davis [groklaw.net] and Brian Kernighan [groklaw.net] to review and refute SCO's claims. Kernighan wrote the first C programming book with Dennis Ritchie and Randall Davis helped establish the abstract, filtration, and comparison sta
{sigh} (Score:2)
You Know It's A Slow News Day... (Score:2)
The Don King Business Model (Score:2)
I bet they're real nervous now. They p
Chinese solution: change group name (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Daleks (Score:2)
Re:Daleks (Score:2)
Re:1992 Called... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless you went with Coherent or XENIX (also co-developed by SCO, by the way), your choice for a rock-solid UNIX on Intel PCs was OpenServer. And it did perform and served many companies very well. That is why today's The SCO Group is still able to obtain some revenue from their OpenServer products. While horribly outdated today, they were excellent and innovative products in the early 1990s.
Re:About time (Score:2, Interesting)