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 Amends Novell Complaint

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the new-chapter-old-story dept.

Caldera 286

rm69990 writes "According to Groklaw, SCO now seeks to amend their complaint against Novell. SCO says it 'seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in significant part in consideration of the counterclaims that Novell asserted in its Answer and Counterclaims.' SCO now accuses Novell of infringing SCO's copyrights by distributing SUSE Linux, of breaching a non-compete clause between the two companies, and SCO is also asking for specific performance forcing Novell to turn over the Unix copyrights to SCO. So SCO is essentially admitting that Novell owns the copyrights at this point, but is saying that Novell breached the contract (that specifically excluded copyrights) by failing to transfer them to Santa Cruz."

cancel ×

286 comments

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

Wha?!? (4, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399630)

The... both... sell... and... support... operating... systems. How can they NOT compete?

Re:Wha?!? (0)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399741)

We are the darl. resistance is futile.

Re:Wha?!? (5, Funny)

archevis (634851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399779)

What, you accusing SCO of not making any sense...?!?!?

You watch your mouth, young man!

---
"I think not!", Descartes said, and promptly dissappeared.

Re:Wha?!? (3, Insightful)

Too many errors, bai (815931) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399799)

A non-competition contract is a trust with a different name.

Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha?!? (3, Interesting)

Forge (2456) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399803)

Cases like this show the wisdom of the "Looser pays" philosophy of British common law.

In essence if you are in a lawsuit and the court rules against you then the other goy can ask the court to make you pay his lawyer. The courts usually accept those requests.

In the case of the fiasco sco has been carrying on, those rules would immediately double the cost to them. It also reduces the likelihood of someone settling a frivolous lawsuit.

SCO has also filed suite in contries that require you to support your original claim. Those casses are over. In Ostralia they are under warning to not try it again. (Public mischife is a crime)

Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399858)

The problem arises when Joe Shmo tries to sue Microsoft for stealing his idea and driving his company out of business and gets buried under a 100,000 dollar a day legal team, which he then has to pay for.

I think we definitely should have more protections in place against frivolous and groundless lawsuits, but I don't think that dumping all the legal costs on the loser is the way to go about it.

Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14400041)

Who else is going to pay then? The person who had the case brought against them made real live costs. If the case wasn't valid they should not have had to make the costs. Such costs destroy small businesses.

Maybe the government should have to pay and the costs taken out of the politician's bonuses to try and encourage them not to build unjust legal systems.

Do your mean frivilous cases as to law as to "non-obvious" as to patents? That's easy to fix!

Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (4, Interesting)

tdemark (512406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400114)

How about "loser pays", but the amount is limited to the amount the loser spent. If you lose, it will cost only as much as you spent. There would have to be some ground rules for things like self-representation and lawyers who work on contingency. There would also have to be an on-going public record of actual costs.

It would sorta act as a resource balance in proceedings. If "big company" is sued by "Joe Schmoe" working with a single lawyer, they have every right to use a team of 30 lawyers, but should only expect to be reimbursed for the first one.

- Tony

Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399864)

Cases like this show the wisdom of the "Looser pays" philosophy of British common law.

If the Brits really had "looser pays" then the Spice Girls would have to pay for every case in Britain. I think you mean "loser pays."

Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399886)

When SCO loses, there won't be a company left to pay. Your system would make no difference to SCO.

Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400011)

It would not immediatly double there cost.

It would double it when they lost.

And it's not like you can force a company/person to pay either. Though I guess you could apply it at every motion along the way and not let a company ile another motion until they pay for the last one that they lost, but it seams silly.

Also, is there a cap on how much the loser pays? I would hate to have to pay frivilous lawyers fees even if the case was frivilous.

Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14400120)

In the UK (& much of the rest of Europe) the court awards payment to the winner, which may or may not be the full amount of the legal bills. There is also the right to appeal. So in order to get hit with frivilous costs, the awarding judge would have to not spot them and the appeals judge would have to ignore your complaint. If you're still ordered to pay the full amount at that point, the costs probably wern't frivilous.

Re:Wha?!? (5, Informative)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399818)

Here is the short version. Novell contracted with SCO to manage the UNIX licensing, but did not transfer the ownership of the Copyrights. This is disputed by SCO. Part of that agreement, according to SCO, was that Novell would continue to sell it's existing line of OS products. This is not competing since they are handled by the license agreement and SCO would get a pittance for each copy sold by Novell. SCO says that Linux violates this because they don't get any money from Novell selling Linux because it's not part of the license agreement, therefore competing.

They also claim that parts of UNIX were misappropriated into Linux, therefore they should get ownership of those parts also, but that is a seperate part of the complaint

Re:Wha?!? (2, Informative)

IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400006)

AFAIR there was a "shall not compete in UNIX bussiness" clause in the original SCO/NOVELL UNIX contract.

when will the madness end? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399638)

i'm going insane over SCO!!!!

How can they keep doing this? (5, Interesting)

IntelliAdmin (941633) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399639)

It is amazing to me that SCO can continue this long without totally running out of lawyer money. I really wonder if some third parties are funding them under the table.

Tell me this -> How are they making a profit today?

No. I really want to know.

Re:How can they keep doing this? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399655)

"Tell me this -> How are they making a profit today?"

They have a secret ad-revenue sharing agreement with /.

Re:How can they keep doing this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399691)

...and Roland Picklepail...

Re:How can they keep doing this? (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399783)

Darl McBride gets to mow lawns and cash cars for Bill Gates for chump change...

Re:How can they keep doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399816)

Follow the money:

Lawers get paid millions by SCOI Directors, who receive funding from Venture Captialists, who are funded by large IT corporations.

Now name a large IT corporation.

Re:How can they keep doing this? (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399819)

Both Sun and MS paid for licenses which pumped them up with tens of millions in cash. Then MS acted as a middlemen to funnel cash in from the canadian banking interest. Those guys got royally shafted on the stock price but they probably had some short interest to try and hedge that. I bet they never listen to MS again though.

Recently some current bagholders came up with some more money to try and continue the lawsuit.

Don't worry, there are lots of really rich and powerful people who benefit from the FUD generated by this lawsuit so SCO will not ever run out of money. Bill G himself will fund it if he has to.

Re:How can they keep doing this? (1)

kurokaze (221063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399839)

The Canadian Banking Interest already pulled their money out, if I recall.

Re:How can they keep doing this? (3, Insightful)

OwlWhacker (758974) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399847)

It is amazing to me that SCO can continue this long without totally running out of lawyer money.

It's amazing that SCO would even consider throwing away money on such a lost cause in the first place.

How are they making a profit today?

I'm sure everybody knows that they're not making a profit; their goal is to own Linux and Unix, take over the world, and make mountains of cash. Of course, it seems that they're the only ones who believe that this is likely... oh, and Rob Enderle.

Re:How can they keep doing this? (2, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400099)

It's amazing that SCO would even consider throwing away money on such a lost cause in the first place.

I suspect that SCO now realizes that it can't possibly win, and is merely trying to extend its lawsuit long enough for the public to forget they exist. If they can keep the case tied up in the courts for a few more years, they probably think that everyone will no longer care. I don't think they realize how long Slashdot holds a grudge.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to hack my CueCat. ;-)

Re:How can they keep doing this? (4, Informative)

confusion (14388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399918)

The answer is that they're not doing well financially at all. They continue to get infusions of cash from private investors to cover ongoing legal costs: http://www.forbes.com/2005/12/22/jetblue-applied-s ignal-cx_dn_1222eyeonstocks.html [forbes.com]

I suspect they can keep it up for another year or so before they start running out of investors to screw.

Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]

Well, another $10,000,000 helps. (4, Interesting)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399937)

According to this article [yahoo.com] , SCO got another ten million from a private placement of stock with existing institutional investors. Since every rational assessment of the stock suggests that the ten million is not going to pay off on the stock market, it's reasonable to assume that these "investors" have some motive other than profiting from the stock directly.

If you read groklaw some more ...... (1)

J1bber (524102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400002)

I think you may find they did a deal with the lawyers such that there is a maximum cost to them, but i may be wrong on that

Oh yeah, I remember these guys now! (1)

Blue Eagle 26 (683113) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399640)

I thought SCO crashed and burned around a year ago? The road kill that got run over by IBM is still twitching I guess.

SCO still exists? (3, Funny)

thparker (717240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399644)

Isn't this over by now? The last time I saw a SCO article here, it seemed that even the judge was sick of their nonsense. Is there anyone still taken in by this charade?

Re:SCO still exists? (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399776)

As long as both sides have money it'll keep going.

The winner will be the one with most money (which luckily for us isn't SCO).

What BS (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399648)

How are they still getting away with this idiocy? If I was the judge I would throw those responsible in jail, and if any lawyer would bring the case up again(in court) I would throw them in jail. This is just shear stupidity.

Re:What BS (1)

heavy snowfall (847023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399751)

Imagine the pain when they finally lose though... :)

Seriously, the longer they go on with this crap the angrier the judge gets, I can imagine he's had just about enough of this case...

Re:What BS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399963)

What did the sharks ever do? Won't somebody please think of the sharks?

What? (-1, Redundant)

SoTuA (683507) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399649)

SCO still alive?

2003 called, it wants its stupid lawyer-run company back.

Yea! (2, Funny)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399652)

SCO's back in the news. I've missed my SCO fix lately. This manouver looks pretty much as dumb as the ones in the past. I give them 3 weeks before they backpedal on the new, new ammended claims.

Re:Yea! (1)

haploc (57693) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399743)

They have done nothing else but trying to boost the value of their shares since the beginning of the whole thing.
They dropped under $4, so now they're trying to raise it again with some more PR, so that their name gets in the news.

Re:Yea! (1)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399793)

... Or maybe they are just trying to put pressure on Novell,by trying to hurt its business, to get Novell to agree to SCO's terms for a settlement, .

Usually this would be called blackmail/extortion ofcourse.

Sco ??? (2, Funny)

Dam's (921393) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399666)

What's that ?

Ready... Set... (3, Insightful)

Volatile_Memory (140227) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399668)

...YAWN.

v.m

Re:Ready... Set... (0, Offtopic)

pinguwin (807635) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400102)

..YAWN....ZZZZZZZ......

NaN (1)

theltemes (645761) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399675)

Gar, the wheels of Justice grind slowly, they do.

All the worse for them.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399957)

I believe one should crush your mortal enemy very slowly to wreak the most amount of pain on them. Don't put them out of their misery all too soon.

Second Amendment Complaint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399680)

Has Novell been stockpiling guns again?

Second Amendment Complaint? (4, Funny)

Roj Blake (931541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399681)

Watch out, they have finally gone completely nuts and are going to start shooting!

Re:Second Amendment Complaint? (1)

nuremon (791801) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399705)

Watch out, they have finally gone completely nuts and are going to start shooting!

I'm glad I'm not the only person who read this that way...

Re:Second Amendment Complaint? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399723)

It's not often you get four simultaneous and identical comments on any topic... bet they all get modded "redundant"

In related news... (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399844)

Eric Raymond was seen around SCO advisors.

Re:Second Amendment Complaint? (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400124)

I'd have thought they'd try the Establishment Clause of the 1st [wikipedia.org] . Just claim to be some UFO cult/religion [primus.ca] , or something. That's something people would believe, and they could get a lot of money from people if they claimed it was for Nike "Just Do It" outfits and comet tickets [wikipedia.org] .

Second Amendment (4, Funny)

two_socks (516862) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399683)

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That's pretty off base, even for SCO.

Re:Second Amendment (1)

heavy snowfall (847023) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399787)

It's their lawyer teams last cruel joke on them before they ditch them.

Re:Second Amendment (1)

archevis (634851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399895)

Hold your laughs until they file their Fourth Amentment [findlaw.com] Complaint...

--
The 4th annual symposium on time travelling will be held last thursday.

Re:Second Amendment (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399961)

Considering that their legal complaints have pretty much been crap up to this point, I don't want to know where they searched, and what they seized.

Not my guns! (4, Funny)

rharder (218037) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399685)

A Second Amendment complaint? Now they want to take my unix AND my guns!

SCO Needs to do more of this... (4, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399689)

From the complaint (via Groklaw): V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff SCO prays this Court enter judgment for SCO and against Novell:

Although I doubt God will be listening, as he's upgrading his SUSE Linux...

In Corporate America... (3, Funny)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399692)

In Corporate America, criminals/conmen sue you .... oh wait! bugger!

American Public School: Thank you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399701)

... Second Amended Complaint in significant part in consideration of the counterclaims that Novell asserted...


I fell asleep during American Government class. Are they asserting their right to bear arms? If so, this could get messy!

Wookies, Anyone? (1)

Kurt Wall (677000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399718)

Any minute now, the Chewbacca Defense [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Wookies, Anyone? (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399735)

Any minute now, the Chewbacca Defense.

In the South Park sense, or in the 'I'm going to rip your arms off if I lose' sense?

Re:Wookies, Anyone? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399841)

In the South Park sense, or in the 'I'm going to rip your arms off if I lose' sense?

Considering that, in all respects, SCO is about as intimidating as C3P0...

Re:Wookies, Anyone? (1)

Lectrik (180902) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399962)

In the South Park sense, or in the 'I'm going to rip your arms off if I lose' sense?

Considering that, in all respects, SCO is about as intimidating as C3P0...


Is this C3P0 before the incident in Cloud City?
Or afterwards when he was being carried around as a wookie backpack?

Didn't SCO have a ceiling agreement (3, Interesting)

LinuxDon (925232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399720)

I remember having read something about a ceiling agreement they have with their legal company.
Namely that there was a maximum price they would have to pay for legal support, above that amount of money the costs were for the legal company.

Couldn't find a link to it on Google though.

Re:Didn't SCO have a ceiling agreement (1)

canfirman (697952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399956)

I think you're right. I remember that there was a maximum that SCO would pay for the lawyers' fees. I'm willing to bet that they've either reached the maximum or are getting close to it. I'll also bet that, as SCO reaches the maximum, the quality of lawyers involved starts to decrease, as the lawyers involved realize this court case isn't happening any time soon and they don't want to invest too much of their own money in it. As long as SCO was paying the bills, well they'd do whatever they wanted (not necessarily whatever is needed).

Re:Didn't SCO have a ceiling agreement (2, Informative)

martyb (196687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400004)

Re:Didn't SCO have a ceiling agreement (2, Insightful)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400067)

Sorta. According to this article [groklaw.net] , their legal fees were capped, but it does not include "expert, consulting and other expenses". I just wonder how motivated their lawyers are going to be now that they know they're not going to make any more money from the case.

From The Article (3, Informative)

putko (753330) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399722)

This looked the most meaty and techy from TFA:

    EXHIBIT B

          Novell's unauthorized copying in its use and distribution of SuSE
          Linux includes but is not limited to the appropriateion of the
          following data structures and algorithms contained in or derived
          from SCO's copyrighted material:

          1. SuSE's implementation of the "Read/Copy/Update" algorithm
          2. SuSE's implementation of NUMA Aware Locks
          3. SuSE's implementation of the distributed lock manager
          4. SuSE's implementation of reference counters
          5. SuSE's implementation of asynchronous I/O
          6. SuSE's implementation of the kmalloc data structure
          7. SuSE's implementation of the console subsystem
          8. SuSE's implementation of IRQs
          9. SuSE's implementation of shared memory locking
          10. SuSE's implementation of semaphores
          11. SuSE's implementation of virtual memory
          12. SuSE's implementation of IPC's
          13. SuSE's implementation of load balancing
          14. SuSE's implementation of PIDs
          15. SuSE's implementation of numerous kernel internals and APIs
          16. SuSE's implementation of ELF
          17. SuSE's implementation of STREAMS
          18. SuSE's implementation of dynamic linking
          19. SuSE's implementation of kernel pre-emption
          20. SuSE's implementation of memory mapping
          21. SuSE's implementation of ESR
          22. SuSE's implementation of buffer structures
          23. SuSE's implementation of process blocking
          24. SuSE's implementation of numerous header files

Re:From The Article (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399746)

21. SuSE's implementation of ESR
You mean there's more than one ESR out there?!

Re:From The Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399995)

Yeah, and he's packin' heat!

Re:From The Article (2, Funny)

Gzip Christ (683175) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400091)

You mean there's more than one ESR out there?!
Yes. The number of ESRs doubles every 18 months (the amount of time it takes him to reproduce via mitosis).

Re:From The Article (4, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399775)

Novell's unauthorized copying in its use and distribution of SuSE Linux includes but is not limited to the appropriateion of the following data structures and algorithms contained in or derived from SCO's copyrighted material:

Pretty much everything that makes SuSE remotely like UNIX, basically. This seems to be derived from SCO's amusing claim that all our UNIX are belong to them; they must have sat down, asked themselves 'what makes a UNIX system so UNIXey?', written out a list and handed it to the lawyers...

Re:From The Article (3, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399834)

You know what amazes me? What amazes me is that the Judge in this case has never even once asked "can you show me any evidence that you actually own any of this intellectual property". You would think that would be the first thing to get settled no?

The American legal system is a joke.

Re:From The Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399911)

Lest we forget, because the SCO case(s) have taken so long to be resolved, SCO was once a major distributor of the Linux OS. Hence, the Slashdot symbol being a "C" for Caldera, [slashdot.org] not the pure, fresh pine logo of the SCO Group. [sco.com]

This is the same kind of hipocrasy that we have in the White House, too. Bush now demands to find the "leaker" of his secret spying program, when the Plame leaker is his chief advisor. [google.com]

Re:From The Article (1)

toastyman (23954) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399935)

SuSE's implementation of ESR

Oooh, be careful about pushing this one SCO. He's got guns [wikipedia.org] .

Err, uh .. what? (4, Funny)

thaerin (937575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399760)

"So SCO is essentially admitting that Novell owns the copyrights at this point, but is saying that Novell breached the contract (that specifically excluded copyrights) by failing to transfer them to Santa Cruz."

I can see there collectively being a large amount of heads exploding after trying to make sense of that one. I'm thinking SCO has nothing to do with Santa Cruz and more to do with SChizOphrenia because they've seem to have lost touch with reality.

Re:Err, uh .. what? (1)

waif69 (322360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399848)

OK, so Novell owns it, and SCO wants it. SCO is sueing Novell for not giving up the copywrite in a contract that said that Novell keeps the copywrite.

Did Darl bump his head again?

Re:Err, uh .. what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399927)

And a contract that SCO isn't/wasn't even party to.

Re:Err, uh .. what? what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399966)

...Novell keeps the copywrite. Eh? Wot dat?

Copyright . It's the rights you have... sheesh.

Stick to the script, just stick to the script (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399769)

The big wigs (both in and out of SCO) have gently sold off their holdings. Now it's time to back away from the suit slowly and let the stock collapse to some pre-1995 level. Soon the courts and the press and the people will forget everything and SCO can begin to sell a BSD-based OS. (Or maybe one of the C*Os can run for govenor of Texas.)

Bah (4, Insightful)

lunenburg (37393) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399784)

The fact that this hasn't been laughed out of court yet makes me sad.

Re:Bah (1)

archevis (634851) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399843)

Nah, imagine the collective Slashdot dissapointment when news breaks that the trial was simply thrown out of court.

We all wanna see a final ruling. Preferrably one where Darl is sent to Guantanamo. But at least a final ruling, with prejudice, to put an end to all future scoxing attempts.

BTW, is "scoxing" a word...?

--
Black holes: Where God divided by zero.

Re:Bah (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399896)

Maybe the judge has an appreciation for clowns, and wants to keep these around since they are so entertaining.

/proc/kmalloc (1)

rawwa.venoise (881755) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399789)


1. SuSE's implementation of the "Read/Copy/Update" algorithm
2. SuSE's implementation of NUMA Aware Locks
3. SuSE's implementation of the distributed lock manager
4. SuSE's implementation of reference counters
5. SuSE's implementation of asynchronous I/O
6. SuSE's implementation of the kmalloc data structure
...

Kmalloc? lwm.net/Articles/124374 [lwn.net]

Are theses guys on Dope?

/. editors up to their usual form (3, Informative)

puzzled (12525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399791)


  SCOX is arguing that Novell has infringed on their copyrights with SuSe Linux. They've also argued that Novell has failed to properly transfer the copyrights to them. Two lines of argument, each in opposition to each other, are perfectly fine the the court system. I forget the name for this, but basically SCOX is offering judge Kimball two different ways to give them 'relief' for Novell's supposed wrongdoing.

  SCOX has admitted nothing. The meaning of 'admit', to a court, is that one of the parties involved is giving up information to the court that the other side can't prove. If SCOX were 'to admit' a lack of copyrights in lawyerspeak their case would instantly disintegrate and the door would open to Lanham Act claims and all sorts of other nastiness. SCOX never, ever 'admits' to anything.

  There are plenty of people with knowledge of this case - see groklaw.net for mind numbing detail, or go to the Yahoo SCOX board if you'd like rowdy commentary and a sad, funny little troll named backinfullforce.

Re:/. editors up to their usual form (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14400016)

Argument in the alternative

So... (1)

Spackler (223562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399814)

So now they admit they never owned the copyrights. Doesn't this just end the IBM thing. If Novell dismissed that issue, can the morphed case go on? I expcet IBM to file something new very quickly (Partial Summary Judgement) to start ripping SCO a new one. Here we go again!

ESR? (4, Funny)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399827)

21. SuSE's implementation of ESR

I know Debian has "Virtual RMS", but I think SuSE is really going weird if they implement stuff like this. Weird syslog messages from SuSE boxes:

Jan 4 06:47:45 localhost esr: gunning some processes

Gotta love that circular reasoning. (4, Insightful)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399855)

The amendment is hysterically funny if you keep in mind that the original charge was for Slander of Title. In other words, SCO sued Novell because Novell claimed title to copyrights owned by SCO. Now we have SCO asking the court for this:
(a) requiring Novell to assign to SCO any and all copyrights Novell improperly registerd in UNIX and UnixWare following the Asset Purchase Agreement: (b) preventing Novell from representing in any forum that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights; and (c) requiring Novell to retract or withdraw all representations it has made regarding its purported ownership of the copyrights;
So, having sued Novell because Novell said it owned the copyright, SCO asks the court to transfer those same copyrights from Novell to SCO and -- having transferred those rights -- to admit that Novell no longer has them.

Does SCO even know what they're suing for?

Ready! Fire! Aim! (-1, Flamebait)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399894)

SCO is also asking for specific performance forcing Novell to turn over the Unix copyrights to SCO.

SCO might as well have walked into court and announced the IBM, RedHat and AutoZone cases we're really just attempts at extortion and this is the REAL case. Just ignore all that stuff before and just give us what we need to make the charges in those other cases true.

You sure have to give them credit for sheer nads. But keep in mind that Novell still has a motion pending requesting 35 million of SCO's money be set aside to pay any potential claims Novell has on the MSFT/Sun license deals. If that goes through it's game, set and match. Absent that and absent any more finance angels dropping another 10 million on them, SCO will be out of money before any of these cases actually go to trial.

I don't suppose Brent Hatch, son of Whorin' Hatch, being on SCO's legal team has had any impact on this charade being in court this long. The great wheel of Republican corruption goes round and round.

bleh. (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399904)

I disagree with Senator McCain. I believe in torture. I believe that Darl, Yarro, BiFF, Anderer, the lawfirm of BSF, and the rest of the foul bunch should be chained naked together, repeatedly dunked in a barrel of ripe chum that's been brewing on the dock for the month of July, and fed to sharks with frikin' laser beams.

--
BMO

Re:bleh. (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399983)

I'm sorry, but feeding SCO lawyers and execs to sharks (even mutated ones with head-mounted "lay-zers") would be considered cruel and unusual. Some types of shark, after all, are an endangered species.

Re:bleh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14400013)

I disagree, cruel and unsual punishment isn't allowed (I'm talking about the poor sharks with laser beams)

legal 2 English translation anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14399928)

What does this mean? I stared at it like a piece of obfuscated Perl code for about 10 minutes...

"SCO says it 'seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in significant part in consideration of the counterclaims that Novell asserted in its Answer and Counterclaims.' SCO now accuses Novell of infringing SCO's copyrights by distributing SUSE Linux, of breaching a non-compete clause between the two companies, and SCO is also asking for specific performance forcing Novell to turn over the Unix copyrights to SCO. So SCO is essentially admitting that Novell owns the copyrights at this point, but is saying that Novell breached the contract (that specifically excluded copyrights) by failing to transfer them to Santa Cruz."

(It) They are seeking something. What they are seeking is leave. (Most companies do business during business hours, however I guess SCO want to do this on their vacation time.) Or perhaps by 'leave' they mean permission? That seems more likely, so they are seeking permission for something from someone perhaps? What they are seeking permission to do is 'file' something. But from whom they are seeking permission and why such permission is needed remains unclear. It seems that the thing they want to 'file' is a 'Second Ammended Complaint'. We can assume this is an intrinsic because all the words are capitalised. So what was wrong with the first ammeded complaint, and indeed the one before that? Surely if it was ammended then they got the first draft wrong. And now they want to ammend it again? How careless. Perhaps a little more diligence and thoroughness in the first place would have avoided this? But what about this 'filing' affair? Why do they need permission? Can't they just write a file? Is the disk write protected, or do they need permission to get some paper to print it on? No wonder the legal system is in such disarray when permission is needed to even create a file. Anyway I digress, what about this 'Second Ammended Complaint'? Will there be a third and a fourth? What is the point of this game? Apparently a significant part of it (I don't know what counts as significant, and if it is already significnt why bother to mention it) is in 'consideration' (how nice of them, it's good to know SCO are a considerate company) _OF_ (now here we get really stuck, consideration relationship is FOR an entity not OF it, but let's assume this is a typo) the counterclaims. Whoooah! What counterclaims? Ok, so there were presumably counterclaims by Novell. So this is about a lawsuit that Novell are attacking SCO with? Are we even talking about the same case as the one where SCO attacked Novell in which these tit for tat exchanges all count as part of one great fight? Ah I see its a bit like LISP this legal code. Start at the rightmost end and start factoring backwards. So Novell created a Counterclaim and in it they asserted something SCO got pissy about? But only because Novell were pissy because of omething SCO asserted. OK, I get it now! Where have I seen this sort of thing before? Oh the yes 3rd Year infants playground that's where. Well, I hope whoever dishes out the permission doesn't grant it, because the whole thing is obviously a circus already and in need of a little more adult behaviour and less showing off with long words and clever talk. Don't these people have jobs to go to? Oh wait...

Who's to blame? (1)

B Man (51992) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399967)

Seeing as Novell Corp had engineers that created a linux distribution, then spawn it off to its own company (Caldera) then they go IPO and whammo lots of cash to buy SCO, then SCO somehow swallows Caldera and no more Linux. Then Novell shows back up and buys SuSe. So no matter how you look at this its still Novell's fault. And to the question about where does SCO get their money. Well I guess dumbasses like me that thought investing in Caldera was good for Linux. So basically Linux funded SCO's legal battles against Linux. Now why does noone ever point at Ray Noorda since it was his money that started all this shit to begin with?

My idea (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399969)

I think Novell should file a Second Ammendment claim asking to bear (and use) arms in their case against SCO.

Pull the little yellow bus over, now! (1, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14399997)

Wait... so SCO is suing about the copyrights, which they admit are owned by Novell, and weren't even part of the deal?

We can do stuff like that?

*ahem*

Mister Trump, if you're reading: You are a successful business man. I am not. Therefore, you owe me one billion dollars. A money order will be fine.

It's all about delay, and msft scare tactics (4, Interesting)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400007)

"Oh man, they must be crazy! The lawsuits make no sense at all!" Right? Wrong, scox is being crazy like a fox. What scox is doing makes perfect sense.

At this point, the entire point of the scam is keep delaying. Msft's army of shills are screaming the message: "People are being sued for using Linux - don't use Linux." Of course the msft influenced tech-pop-media is leaving out the details, but most of the public isn't interested in the details.

There is also a very powerful object lesson being sent to other companies: "if you contribute to Linux, you better be ready to spend $100MM to fight a msft backed nuisance lawsuit. And you better be squeaky clean, because the discovery will never stop." How many companies want to bother with that? "Screw it. I was going to donate this code to Linux, but it just isn't worth the trouble."

McBride rakes in an easy $1MM a year. Scox market cap goes from $6MM to $70MM. Life is good for the scox scammers. Scox execs can lie, cheat, and steal, all they want. The USA bogo-justice system isn't going to do anything about it.

If I were SCO... (1)

thegnu (557446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400010)

I'd have invested those $10 million in Chewco Investments.

But that's just me.

A stunning plan folks... (1)

JaJ_D (652372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400054)

"So SCO is essentially admitting that Novell owns the copyrights at this point, but is saying that Novell breached the contract (that specifically excluded copyrights) by failing to transfer them to Santa Cruz." Ok, bare with me, I think I have worked out how to defeat Microsoft and then take over the world....

1 Get SCO to sue Microsoft from breach of copyright
2 Sue MS for breach of contract and get them to turn over the copyright to us
3 Get LOTS of money and domination in the software world 4 repeat steps 1-3 with other companies 5 Copyright the word "china"
6 Repeat the procedure and sue China for using the word "china" and demand all monies generated by China
7 Repeat steps 3 and 4 with all contries on the planet (noting that "french fries" could be an issue).
8 Stroke the white pussy cat and go "Ah Mr Bond" a few times
9 Shot Mr Bond, don't try anything fancy. Get a gun shot him, then empty a clip into him, reload and repeat empting the clip. Do it yourself and don't let any employee do it. Take the dead body and burn it, and then pass it through an industrial blender
10 Sit back and enjoy!

Jaj

Oh yeah... (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400092)

Taking some liberties with Despair.com:
"Persistence: It's over, Man...let it go!"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha!!!! too funny! (0)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400130)

I really don't know what else to do other than laugh. It's so funny it's pathetic.

Novell Did Steal from SCO (2, Funny)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 8 years ago | (#14400147)

SuSE begins with "S" just like SCO. Obviously Novell should be sued for taking it from SCO.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?