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!

IBM Drops Patent Counterclaims

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the why-prolong-the-inevitable dept.

Caldera 137

Mr. Slant writes "According to this article on Groklaw, IBM is dropping their patent counter-claims. Why? It's not because they think they'd lose, but rather because SCO wants to waste more time litigating. There's still some question over whether SCO will be able to pay the rest of their legal bills, given how much cash they're losing each quarter." From the article: "Here's a simple rule of litigation. You never, ever offer to drop anything you think you'll need for victory or to make yourself whole. Litigation is always a cost-benefit analysis. You have to have the prospect of a sizable enough win to pay your lawyer, or you will find it hard to get one, or, like Boies Schiller, the lawyer will want its money up front. IBM did the math, and SCO isn't looking like deep pockets any more, is it, now that Boies Schiller has drained them of pretty much all they had? So, IBM's practical analysis apparently was that it's worth more to get the thing over with on time than to go after counterclaims against a defendant with no money in its pocket to pay damages or royalties, even when IBM won. Plus, there is some strategy here too. Sometimes in chess, you'll let a pawn be sacrificed to set up a checkmate."

cancel ×

137 comments

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

LOL PATENTS RULE LOL (0, Troll)

LOL PATENTS RULE LOL (903720) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742785)

LOL PATENTS RULE LOL

whoop (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742786)

dee doo?

Oh, please. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742789)

Enough fanboying already. We know SCO sucks. That sort of sentiment just makes you look desperate in a very SCO-ish way.

Re:Oh, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742827)

Seconded.

Re:Oh, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743100)

Thirded. I've started to read /. less & less these days because it's rapidly sliding down hill. Rumour, opinion, misrepresentation & bias for nerds.

Ok I know it's not as snappy and it's much more difficult to fit inside 275 pixels but at least it would be accurate.

Re:Oh, please. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743204)

Of course, the rumor, opinion, misrepresentation, and bias usually comes from the company press releases that get a byline by the industry rag's author of choice. Slashdot doesn't actually report - they simply list and link to other's "reporting". Little suprise there's a lot of dross in the headlines... which is why there's a comments section.

The only shame is that over the years more and more astroturfers and bored antisocials have discovered Slashdot and attempted to drown signal and increase the noise with their own campaigns to bury or discredit.

Whenever I see someone talking about how Slashdot has gone downhill, I wonder if that person is actually lamenting the same thing as I am, has no history to work with and actually doesn't know what Slashdot really was like at one time, or is actually one of the aforementioned noise generators with an agenda.

SCO? where have i heard this before... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742791)

This thing is still going on? What the hell? Can't they just get it over with and die?

Re:SCO? where have i heard this before... (3, Funny)

Jay Carlson (28733) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743844)

This thing is still going on? What the hell? Can't they just get it over with and die?

FINISH HIM!

"IBM Wins."
"Flawless Victory."
"...fatality."

So I guess lawyers have no soul? (5, Funny)

charon_1 (562573) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742794)

"the lawyer will want its money up front."

Right indeed. They actually left out part of it. (2, Insightful)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742847)

.
.
.
You have to have the prospect of a sizable enough win to pay your lawyer, or you will find it hard to get one, or, like Boies Schiller, the lawyer will want its money up front.

Either way, you will have to feed the lawyer, who hungers for souls and human flesh. It will take you if you are not careful, and in a flight of fancy it may enthrall the wicked with its bite, eventually turning innocent humans into lawyers. The only thing that keeps lawyers on your side are math, and money, and when you run out of either, the lawyers will want life-force.
IBM did the math, and SCO isn't looking like deep pockets any more, is it, now that Boies Schiller has drained them of pretty much all they had?
.
.
.

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (2, Funny)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742916)

So I guess lawyers have no soul?

No, just no genitals.

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (1)

FyreFiend (81607) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743008)

Have you seen what the average lawyer charges? They have to have huge brass ones to hand out bills like that

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743200)

No, just no genitals.

How do they reproduce then? Do they ask Rael for the cloning process?

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (2, Insightful)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743261)

I would think they are a self-replicating, virul, life-form. All they seem to need is a suitable host.

It places the lotion in the basket.... (1)

TheTranceFan (444476) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742937)

...or it gets the hose again.

Re:It places the lotion in the basket.... (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743002)

> ...or it gets the hose again.

It files the motion to put the source code for fsck.c in the basket!

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (3, Funny)

The Hobo (783784) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742990)

No no, this is Slashdot, he meant "it's"


;-)

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743247)

He meant what he said... I hear the Nazi's banging at your door.

Pronouns do not get the apostrophe to show possession :)

http://www.gcse.com/english/possession2.htm [gcse.com]

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (2, Informative)

The Lynxpro (657990) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743016)

"So I guess lawyers have no soul?"

Dare I suggest this link to answer your question with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_and_Hart [wikipedia.org]

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (1)

13bPower (869223) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743048)

Maybe they should get one of those lawyers on TV that only get paid if they win the case...

Re:So I guess lawyers have no soul? (1)

David Gould (4938) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743586)

If it has two or more last names, as opposed to, say, one first name and one last name, that's a good hint that it is in fact not a human being, but an entity known as a "law firm". So "it" is indeed the correct pronoun by which to refer to it.

Dear Darl & Chris, (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742800)


Dear Darl & Chris,
I'll have a Big Mac, large fries and a Coke.
Thanks!

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (4, Funny)

varmittang (849469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742833)

Ooooo...and an Apple Pie.

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742864)

But only 4 chicken nuggets, you can take the other 2 and shove them up your ass.

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (1)

mrscorpio (265337) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743018)

You know, an apple pie is $0.99. You can get two for $1.00. Would you like to supersize your meal today sir?

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (1)

KillShill (877105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743028)

with a coronary, to go.

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743281)

...and some flap jacks!

is it too early for flap jacks?

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (1)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743424)

Err make that a humble pie and supersize it ok.

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742887)

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742915)

Do you think they would really allow him to operate the till?
I'd imagine he'll be the guy sweeping the floor.

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742927)

As if you'd let these two get anywhere near a cash till...

Errr...guys...you missed a spot here

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742950)

Dear Darl & Chris, I'll have a Big Mac, large fries and a Coke. Thanks!
I don't think even McDonalds will be dumb enough to hire them after this. They may spill coffee on someone's lap or something. I'm thinking they'd make great Walmart greeters. Especially if they had to smile while you threw rotten vegetables at them.

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743860)

I don't think even McDonalds will be dumb enough to hire them after this. They may spill coffee on someone's lap or something.


+1 Flamebait

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743074)

Dear Grub,

That will be 699.00 dollars please.

Darryl

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (1)

coldmist (154493) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743199)

No, I don't want it Super-Sized!

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743662)

Dear Darl & Chris,
I'll have a Big Mac, large fries and a Coke.
Thanks!


More like: Hey Darl, my bride, my little bride, you know what to do...

Re:Dear Darl & Chris, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743772)

lol Americans and your fat foods

So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (5, Interesting)

philovivero (321158) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742804)

The state of litigation in the United States is so bad. I've been very closely involved with another lawsuit where the plaintiff was very SCO-like. In the end, he suffered no real harm in his litigious behaviour. The defendents lost tens of thousands of dollars... to the lawyers.

The judge, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that the case was frivolous, let it go ahead.

From this vantage-point, it looks like the lawyers and judges have set up a system where such litigation is encouraged, and the only winners are... you guessed it, the lawyers and judges.

Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (1, Insightful)

Orgazmus (761208) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742821)

Someone just learned a bit more about the world today? ;)

Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742997)

Someone just learned a bit more about the world today?
World? You misspelled US. In most of the world, they have the concept of "Loser Pays". Filing frivolous lawsuits only damages the plaintiff because the loser has to pay the winner's lawyer fees. We're in very bad need of such a system in the US. Although it would be nice if a judge could waive the "loser pays" rule in cases where he thinks the plaintiff had a genuine complaint but still lost.

Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (2, Interesting)

James_Aguilar (890772) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743461)

You cannot pay if you have no money. What do you to do to SCO? Send the head honchos to jail?

if (no)
    OK, then, it's settled.
else
    Answer this question: What good does it do for IBM to send all of SCO's people to jail? None. OK, so IBM will not chase this dream of punishment and justice. So I guess the People have to (If anyone will, that is.). Well, what good does that do the People? We waste MORE money sending people to jail, then even MORE money to keep them in jail, and for what profit? Will they ever have a chance to do this again? I wouldn't say so . . . they're not still dangerous like a serial killer -- they are hobbled by the fact that their failure was public and no one wants them around any more. I wouldn't say that frivilous lawsuits are even deserving of jailtime.

So, let's summarize: To whom would be the benefit if justice were carried through to its extreme?

Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (2, Informative)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743808)

Welcome to America. Please note, we don't have debtors prisons, so if you owe lots and lots of money, bill collectors may call, but no one is going to put in you "federal pound me in the ass prison".

This is one of the things we swore we would no longer tolorate when we broke off from England. That and blood pudding.

Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (1)

san (6716) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743673)

Although it would be nice if a judge could waive the "loser pays" rule in cases where he thinks the plaintiff had a genuine complaint but still lost.

That's exactly how it works in most countries that have a "loser pays" system for civil cases. See, for example this text [pointoflaw.com] for more on the subject.

Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (2, Informative)

Xylaan (795464) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742897)

As far as I know, they're only dropping the patent counter claims, not any of the other counter-claims (Lanham Act, Unfair practicies, Copyright Violation, Breach of Contract).

SCO is trying to assert that the patent counter-claims will require even more discovery, and IBM has decided that they can put the screws to SCO without using them, and is dropping them in an attempt to get this over with.

Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (2, Insightful)

Klivian (850755) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742934)

SCO gonna get the punished all right, IBM only dropped one of their counterclaims. As they have several more, and since SCO tried to use this one to delay even more, IBM simply dropped it counting on the others to be more than eunuch to do SCO in.

There will be no SCO to be punished... (1)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743181)

One of the main reasons that IBM dropped the claims is that there will be no SCOX left once the rest of the case finishes.

You have two options:

1. Hit them with 70% of your arsenal. This will take two years to complete, and you are guaranteed to win everything they have.
2. Hit them with everything, which will take five years to complete, and you are guaranteed to win everything they have.

Same reward, one just happens a *LOT* sooner. Pretty simple choice.

Re:So SCO gets no punishment whatsoever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743339)

Ahh slashdot. Where you can NEVER go wrong using anecdotal evidene to prove the evil of lawyers.

Awww... (4, Funny)

ElGameR (815688) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742805)

I really wanted to see two large companies locked in an epic duel to the death in the arena of US Federal Courts, only to have the SCO beheaded due to lack of funds! Well, anyway, I'm off to english class...

Go Go Big Blue (4, Interesting)

fragmentate (908035) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742807)

I'm glad they decided to pull back. It shows how savvy they really are.

But who can remember when IBM was the monstrosity of the market? When they were the litigious ones? The stiff-suited giant wasn't always this open to reason. I think what sets them apart is they wised up, where others believe they will always be the status-quo.

IBM used to think that... Now they know you have to constantly raise the bar. This action shows they know how to.

Re:Go Go Big Blue (0, Offtopic)

njcoder (657816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742979)

Yeah... now we only have to worry about why IBM settled other lawsuits and made the victims keep quiet about the IBM case [cpeo.org]

Re:Go Go Big Blue (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743165)

I'm glad they decided to pull back. It shows how savvy they really are.

Well, IBM can still obliterate SCO later on over the patent claims in a separate lawsuit if there is anything left of SCO after this case. Or even if there is nothing left but a shell, they could still do it as a salt-the-earth policy.

SCwho? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742810)

SCO? Can't recall any company by that name...

Stuff that ...mattered... (5, Informative)

vlad_petric (94134) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742817)

The much more interesting story from groklaw is that SCO's motion for further delay was denied [groklaw.net]

Re:Stuff that ...mattered... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742912)

Good. I am really getting tired of this SCO suit. As another poster said, it would be hard to find an example of a more frivolous lawsuit, and yet it has continued on and on, wasting money of several companies (including SCO's own money, which they got from fooled investors). I hesitate to call for tort reform, however, because I have little faith in the current US government to do it well (and I'm not being "anti-republican," the democrats are just as bad in my view).

Re:Stuff that ...mattered... (2, Informative)

JPriest (547211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743029)

Oh my god, I just read on the same page they are _still_ in discovery! What gives? If SCO _still_ does not have the evidence they need how could any sane judge let the discovery period continue for this long?

Re:Stuff that ...mattered... (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743711)

Your answer is contained in your question. Emphasis mine.

If SCO _still_ does not have the evidence they need how could any sane judge let the discovery period continue for this long?

"It" certainly describes lawyers... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742819)

the lawyer will want its money up front

The lawyer will want it's money up front!

Re:"It" certainly describes lawyers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742920)

Its is correct.

It's = it is
Its = belonging to it

Re:"It" certainly describes lawyers... (1)

Krach42 (227798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742944)

The lawyer will want its money up front


The lawyer will want it's money up front!

Ok, I know you're an AC, but that doesn't mean you get saved from the Grammar Nazis. Like, what really drives me, is that you're "correcting" the originally correct sentence.

Like... wtf?

Re:"It" certainly describes lawyers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743114)

1. I don't think he was correcting it.. just making a joke (read the subject line did you not?)
2. The original article was incorrect with its .. Unless I missed some great advance in Artificial Intelligence, the only lawyers around are human and either male or female. (which the OP obviously knew in accordance with his joke..)
3. Good job on killing the joke.
4. Stop smoking crack, it's obviously bad for you.

Re:"It" certainly describes lawyers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743143)

wtf? on you! It's is a contraction meaning "it is." Its is showing possession to a thing. "Its coat was brown and now it's pink." Got it?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+it' s [google.com]

IBM's Cunning (4, Insightful)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742820)

IBM has some very smart legal folks working on their behalf and this is a pretty clever move on their side. They're not going to get money on the counterclaims to balance the cost of pursuing them and SCOX's delaying tactics have been based off of having to defend themselves against the counterclaims.

It would be intersting to know if this was IBM's strategy all along. Often time lawyers (especially prosecutors) will add extraneous items to a complaint or motion just so they can then kick it out later and look like the good guy.

SO they are either smart or really smart.

To support the article ... (5, Informative)

linumax (910946) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742822)

Re:To support the article ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742985)

From the article: "In summary, it should be obvious that from an investment viewpoint, SCO is unlikely to make the cut on anyone's list, unless they are looking at it in the same way you might view a lottery ticket."

Except with a lottery chance you have a slim chance of winning. . . . . .

Re:To support the article ... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743166)

An interesting part of the linked story is that it mentions SCO income. What I would like to know is just WHO is still buying anything from these people?

strategy (0, Troll)

Eric Smith (4379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742838)

Plus, there is some strategy here too. Sometimes in chess, you'll let a pawn be sacrificed to set up a checkmate.
Yes, you sacrifice a pawn when it improves your position in other areas. Dropping the patent counterclaims doesn't improve IBM's position, so this analogy is not applicable.

Re:strategy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742868)

Yes it does, it takes away another argument SCO had for delaying coming back before the judge.

Re:strategy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742901)

Actually it does. If SCO is broke, IBM has nothing to gain. If dropping their counter suit prevents SCO from stalling, it could end this much quicker. Either 1) IBM feels confident SCO has no chance of winning and they just want this over, or 2) The counter claims were trumped up and not helping matters...IBM dropped them because they had no chance of winning them. I am guessing 1) is the most likely case based on the fact that IBM still has a full bankroll and SCO is dining on top ramen.

Re:strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743285)

It is analogous because their position will improve overall. SCO is struggling to find anything worthy, so they are delaying with the excuse of having to defend the counterclaims. If the counterclaims are dropped, SCO will have to proceed with nothing, then lose the case. Checkmate!

Re:strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743403)

What's strange is that we're reading about this. A very wise man once said, "In the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces."

...let a pawn be sacrificed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742842)

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

The ultimate corporate insult? (4, Funny)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742866)

"Well, we would sue you, but even though we win, your sorry company wouldn't be able to pay, anyway..."

I like it. Not only is SCO looking pretty pitiful these days, but to be basically deemed to not be worth the six cents for the bullet to put it out of its misery is, I think, a fitting punishment.

And IBM as the good guys. Wow. Maybe if they keep this up, I'll forgive them for MicroChannel...

Re:The ultimate corporate insult? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743006)

SCO ... deemed to not be worth the six cents for the bullet to put it out of its misery

Where do you buy your ammunition? Except for .22LR fodder, most ammunition is a lot more expensive than that... :-)

Re:The ultimate corporate insult? (1)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743020)

Actually, I think a .22LR might do the trick these days, no? 8-)

The Nazgûl move in for the kill... (2, Insightful)

NetRanger (5584) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742869)

I think IBM has the right idea here. SCO is obviously attempting to delay the inevitable at this point, so anything that will shed complexity from this worthless case is A Good Thing(tm).

That being said, I think IBM has little worry about SCO's position at this point, as SCO is poised to burn through its remaining cash reserves RSN. I think the Nazgûl are just eager to at least recoup some legal expenses out of this row before Novell cleans the rest out.

Ahhh, see how the vultures circle the wounded animal...

Re:The Nazgûl move in for the kill... (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743771)

Novell's claims would be paid before IBM's, for the simple fact that the money that Novell is sueing SCO for is Novell's money to begin with, as per the APA. Whereas the money IBM is sueing for is for damages resulting from SCO's erratic behaviour.

We don't need no stinking nukes (4, Insightful)

lildogie (54998) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742880)

IBM knows they have what it takes to crush SCO, so they don't have to use the nuclear option (i.e. their patent portfolio).

Plus they want to get their revenge before SCO starves to death. No use kicking a dead horse, eh?

Re:We don't need no stinking nukes (1)

tushar (205002) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743299)

No use kicking a dead horse, eh?
A dead horse? More like the mosquito that sits on your arm and sucks blood. Now tell me this, would you like to crush that mosquito? :)

Re:We don't need no stinking nukes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13743420)

We can always eat the horse!

f&p cock... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742902)

Escape them by prima d0nnas to FreeBSD continues And other party if desired, we 4s WideOpen, faster than this itself. You can't recent article put

Is it really that simple? (1, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 8 years ago | (#13742943)

Is it really that simple, just wise plotting on the part of IBM? Something tells me that this isn't really over yet... If winning the lawsuit isn't the point, perhaps tenderizing SCO to the point of being ready to sell out is?

I think if IBM owned any remaining IP from SCO it would make an interesting situation.

Given IBM's recent 'play nice with Linux' attitude, that would be very interesting indeed. I don't think that the wounds that IBM got from fighting with Microsoft have ever really healed. With the world of computing changing so much so fast, how would it look if Google/Sun and IBM/Linux were to end up dominating the next 15 years?

Just a thought, or three

Re:Is it really that simple? (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743240)

SCO was ready to sell out from day 1.

IBM was never willing to legitimize that play.

IBM's worried about their reputation. Essentially, SCO said, "You violated a contract with us! You damaged us! Let's negotiate a settlement!"

IBM slaps SCO, and says, "We never violate contracts with anyone. Our word is binding, and we've never damage anyone in any such fashion. See you in court."

SCO then went on a media barrage, claiming IBM hurt them in 8 million ways, violating this and/or that agreement, releasing confidential SCO materials to Linux, screwing SCO on a joint venture.

All of this reinforces IBM's dis-like of SCO.

IBM is a huge company. IBM is well known in the business world, and they have a reputation to keep as old reliable. Nobody ever got screwed for working with IBM. IBM never breaks a contract without legitimate cause.

This kind of damage to their reputation is a very big deal for IBM. The fact that SCO's case has 0 merit adds insult to injury.

IBM will not accept any settlement that does not have SCO admitting guilt. Perhaps if SCO admit they made it all up, and gave the company to IBM, IBM might stop.

Perhaps.

Goose Gander Applied to Chess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742947)

Sometimes in chess, you'll let a pawn be sacrificed to set up a checkmate.

Ah yes, but sometimes in chess, you'll find your sacrifice has actually let your opponent set up a checkmate.

Re:Goose Gander Applied to Chess (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743084)

Only if you're an idiot trying to redefine "sacrifice."

Re:Goose Gander Applied to Chess (2, Insightful)

Samari711 (521187) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743471)

true, but completely irrelevant. IBM said they would drop the patent charges to keep things on schedule, that doesn't mean IBM can't file the charges again later. Dropping the charges saves IBM money and SCO is going to be bankrupt by the end of this anyway. IBM saves time and money while not giving up anything; SCO will probably try to spin it as IBM knows it couldn't win the patent claims but the patents are not relevant to the Linux part of the case.

And there is always the chance ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742995)

Copyright law will side with SCO, since IBM hasn't been particularly careful in keeping UNIX internals developers away from open source code. And a lot of prior IBM litigation has demanded that point from it's rivals hiring it's ex-employees.

Re:And there is always the chance ... (0, Redundant)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743043)

If that were the case, then SCO would have won this a long time ago. They have nothing, no evidence of any kind. It's a pump and dump, pal, and I'm sorry, but your SCO stock is going to be worth less than soiled toilet paper. Put on the brave face all you want, but SCO's going to be broke before this ever actually goes to trial. If you want my advise, use what little money you have left, buy a copy of Photoshop, and start sticking beards, bushy eyebrows, lipstick, D-cups and the like on a picture of McBride so you can make "Have you seen this man? If so, call the FBI" posters.

Re:And there is always the chance ... (1)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743794)

You are probably trolling, but someone might think you are serious. IBM is one of the most careful organisations in the world at ensuring proper procedures are followed when developing open source software. That includes ensuring against code misuse. It is irrelevant whether those writing code at IBM were UNIX experts (in many cases they were more OS/2 experts) as long as they did not copy code that they did not own the rights to. Read the copyright laws carefully and tell me where it says general architectural knowledge about a software product bars you from working on a similar product.

Warning Monty Python Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13742996)

McBride has come to look like the Black Knight in the duel scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

McBride, his limbs chopped off, his head befret of his torso, continues to taunt and threaten, wanting to duel on.

Apparently, for SCO, dying is easy and comedy more so.

Sometimes in chess (1)

psyclone (187154) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743010)

Sometimes in chess, you'll let a pawn be sacrificed to set up a checkmate.

Sometimes? If all it takes is a pawn sacrifice, I would say *always*.

But then again, I haven't been following this game move by move.. I'm just waiting for the Deep Blue victory.

Re:Sometimes in chess (1)

Prof. Pi (199260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743840)

Sometimes? If all it takes is a pawn sacrifice, I would say *always*.


Only if the setup is a sure thing. If you know that if you offer the pawn and it's taken, it will inevitably lead to checkmate, then yes, you always do it. More often, you just do it for a better position, in which you might get a checkmate later on.


Another way to interpret the sentence is to say that it sometimes happens, rather than always, because most players aren't able to detect that opportunity 100% of the time.

Darl McBride's head mounted in the boardroom (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743252)

Kinda like in Sin City, only not as appetizing, thankfully the buzzards have already picked the corpse clean.

Sometimes in chess? (2, Insightful)

ShadyG (197269) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743277)

In chess, you'll sacrifice your queen, both rooks, and every other damn piece available if it gets you a checkmate. There's no pyrrhic victory here, only win, lose, or draw. Bad analogy.

I thought... (2, Funny)

gurutechanimal (629949) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743290)

After reading this quote

Litigation is always a cost-benefit analysis.

Funny, I always thought that the point of lititation was to uncover the truth and gain justice. (sigh) I guess it's back to La-La Land for me, where Law isn't just another business weapon.

No kidding about lawyers wanting money (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743298)

If a lawyer doesn't think the person being sued is able to pay out, or if the lawyer thinks the person being sued has better "team" of lawyers than you do, you're pretty much out of luck unless you can front them the money. After all, it is in the best interest of the lawyer to somehow get the money, and there's no point to sueing the poor or corporate giants.

Re:No kidding about lawyers wanting money (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743640)

If a lawyer doesn't think the person being sued is able to pay out, or if the lawyer thinks the person being sued has better "team" of lawyers than you do, you're pretty much out of luck unless you can front them the money. After all, it is in the best interest of the lawyer to somehow get the money, and there's no point to sueing the poor or corporate giants.

Well, yeah, you're right. If you hire an ambulance chaser who only gets his cut from your judgement, that is. If you want a real lawyer who doesn't look at you as a lottery ticket, you'll *gasp* actually have to pay up front. Like with anything else.

Over sensationalized (1)

ribblem (886342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743352)

Let me try...

Our news crew watched first hand a real world David vs. Goliath battle today. In a spectacular display of heroism a lone little firefighter took on a might Oak in order to rescue a helpless kitten from its treacherous branches.

Inspired (1)

Cytlid (95255) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743382)

partially by the poem in TFA, and partially by the story itself, I've updated my sig...

 

Be the bigger man. (2, Interesting)

xmorg (718633) | more than 8 years ago | (#13743550)

IBM is showing a little character here. We as the Linux community, dont want to stoop to their level. Just let them stew in their own bills, and die quietly.

The more you sue the more press they get. We want SCO to die like scrooge... alone, and unloved.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>