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!

SUSE Requests Arbitration with SCO

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the everyone's-favorite-bad-guy dept.

155

rm69990 writes "In response to SCO's amended complaint against Novell alleging copyright infringement, Novell subsidiary SUSE has requested from the International Chamber of Commerce that SCO be barred from asserting copyright over SUSE Linux due to the UnitedLinux agreement between Caldera, SUSE, Connectiva and Turbolinux. This agreement requires that SCO arbitrate with SUSE instead of filing claims, removes the copyright from any work SCO produced while in UnitedLinux, gives SUSE sublicensing rights to SCO's copyrights, and constitutes an SCO commitment that any code released under an OSS license in UnitedLinux remain Open Source. Novell has filed a motion to stay SCO's claims against Novell until the outcome of this arbitration. So now it looks like Linux users are protected both through the APA between Novell and SCO, but the UnitedLinux agreement as well."

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

Where's that.... (3, Funny)

DoraLives (622001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114386)

cool SCO logo that used to grace these stories? How you people expect me to find 'em without that nifty logo?

Re:Where's that.... (4, Funny)

Frymaster (171343) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114399)

Where's that... cool SCO logo that used to grace these stories?

it's sco's intellectual property. cowboy neal is working on a reverse engineer of it, though.

Where are the editors? (2, Informative)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115058)

I mean, the idiotors. The article linked is the wrong one. This [groklaw.net] is the correct article for the story.

More and more frequently, I'm thinking that slashdot is becoming a mad magazine parody of itself.

Arbitration in Paris (3, Informative)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115295)

Actually, it was the correct article when submitted. The one you linked to is the new article on Groklaw, where it is reported that the arbitration will be in Paris.

PJ, with a spot-on comment (my bold):

If you were given a choice between having a GPL-related case heard in Europe in a fast-track arbitration based on clear contracts or let it drag out for year after painful year in Utah, what would you choose? Anyway, someone on Novell's team at some point noticed that the UnitedLinux agreements, which Caldera signed, require such arbitration of certain types of claims, likely even designating the jurisdiction, and once SCO filed its 2nd Amended Complaint alleging that distribution of SUSE Linux was copyright infringement, it opened up the door to this request for arbitration in France.

Re:Where are the editors? (1)

Black Copter Control (464012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115335)

I mean, the idiotors. The article linked is the wrong one. This is the correct article [groklaw.net] for the story.

The original link does describe SCO requesting arbitration (among other things) The article that you link to was posted early this morning and gives the details of the arbitration filed in europe. I'm guessing that the second article was posted after this was submitted to slashdot.

It's good to have the second article, but there's no need to insult the slashdot editors (this time).

Re:Where are the editors? (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115553)

Well, in the linked article, the focus is on Novel, not Suse (yes, I know that Suse is a subsidiary of Novel), while the slashdot story summary is primarily focused on Suse. That should be a clue.

Seriously, look at the summary and then the articles. Which article is a better match for the summary? Look at the time stamps on the articles. (Yes, I know there is a possible lead time for submission, but I'm talking about the publishing, not the submission.)

Re:Where are the editors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15115570)

Its a good thing your not an editor then, you cannot even spell Novell correctly.

Re:Where's that.... (1)

Ravenrage (739755) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115178)

If it were up to me I'd make sco's logo a steaming pile of crap....just like the company!

Who are the REAL pros here? (5, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114388)



From TFA:
Man, do not mess with Novell. I never worked for lawyers as good as these guys, and it's a plumb pleasin' pleasure to watch them work.
Methinks this gives the Novell lawyers a bit too much credit...after all, all they're doing is patiently assertiing that the sky is in fact blue and that water is, and has always been, wet.

The real geniuses here are the SCO lawyers, for keeping this ridiculous dog & pony show going for as long as they have, although I admit that the admiration I experience witnessing their work is generously laced with nausea and trepidation. When SCO's house of cards finally falls, it will be with a deafening crash amid roars of appreciation from the OSS crowd, but in the meantime, hats off to the talented lawyers that have managed to keep it standing this long. They deserve respect, grudging though it my be.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (4, Interesting)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114450)

You have brought up a bit of a quandry here. When all is said and done and SCO is officially dead, and the lawyers have to find other work, will this be a feather in their cap with SCO on their resume or will they be seen as the bottom feeding scum that they are. You may not like the job they are doing but they are certainly doing it rather well.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (2, Funny)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114492)

...will this be a feather in their cap with SCO on their resume or will they be seen as the bottom feeding scum that they are...

Yes.

OT: Mars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114907)

Tripmaster, we've been missing you on the Mars stories. We miss reading about K'Breel!

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114585)

The people who hire lawyers are usually not the ones who care if they are bottom feeders or not

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (1)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114617)

Indeed, most of the time you're looking for a bottom feeder. No one wants to hire a lawyer who will fight for what is right, they want a lawyer who will fight for them, right or wrong.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114606)

You have brought up a bit of a quandry here. When all is said and done and SCO is officially dead, and the lawyers have to find other work, will this be a feather in their cap with SCO on their resume or will they be seen as the bottom feeding scum that they are. You may not like the job they are doing but they are certainly doing it rather well.
Look. If you were the one hiring the lawyer, who would you rather have? A nice guy who plays nice and fair all the time, or a lawyer who knows every little legal loophole and how to exploit it? Or, to put it in terms that most Slashdotters can understand, who would you rather have on your software security project? A nice programmer who might know a thing or two about breaking security, but has never done it, or a smart hacker who knows his way around every local and remote root exploit known to man and has done so? As the saying goes, when you have to dig through dirt, you get yourself a worm.

That is a good question. (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115282)

That second one -- the one who's broken into hundreds of other people's systems -- how much do you trust himher?

I think I'd rather have someone with a sense of right and wrong, and a brain. Heshe can pick up the technical stuff on the job.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (4, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115312)

If you were the one hiring the lawyer, who would you rather have? A nice guy who plays nice and fair all the time, or a lawyer who knows every little legal loophole and how to exploit it?

Mu.

In the context of this litigation, I would rather have the one that says "look, you have no case. Find another way to solve your financial problem." Rather than "hey, it doesn't matter if you have no case, just sue them anyway - they'll just settle."

In other words, I would rather have the nice guy who plays fair even though he knows every little legal loophole.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (3, Insightful)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114641)

Like it or not, bottom feeding scum is subjective.
When they are in court making you money, they are geniuses...
When they are in court taking your money, they are scum...
Sort of like how defense attorneys are thought of scum sometimes, yet if you were charged with something, you would want the bottomest feeding scumiest one you could find...

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114899)

Then what's your excuse? You don't have a job but you're still oh so low. If i was charged with something I think your face would be the last thing I would want to see. FAG!!!

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (-1, Troll)

Alex P Keaton in da (882660) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114921)

Maybe I am a FAG!! because the thought of you following me around Slashdot from topic to topic, being so lame as to search for me, with your penis out of your pants and in your hand, stroking it while you think of me, is strangely erotic.
It is sort of nice to know you are obsessed with me... Now I know how John Stamos, 1990's heart-throb, feels. Do you have a pic? I am getting flush, my heart is racing.....

Almost made my day. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115042)

I didn't realize you were responding to an AC there for a minute ... I was pretty impressed; you would have taken online schizophrenia to a new level, even for Slashdot.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15115433)

MOD PARENT UP!!!
It is a hilarious response to an A/C who has been following Alex P around the forums. It is nice to see a troll put in his place...
MOD PARENT UP!!!

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115308)

Good point. I used to work for an analytical lab and we got pulled into a court battle that went on for quite a while (years). Our client won because our data stood up to every challenge presented and we went far above and beyond for our client. They got absurdly low prices in the beginning of the project (long before it became a legal battle) and we stuck to those prices despite the added burden of the court battle. Towards the end, the "other side" approached us and said, "We can't wait for this thing to end so we can start using you to handle some of our analytical work." Heck, they had project managers pushing to send us work during the trial but we weren't set up internally to provide that kind of separation between closely related projects for competing clients.

Of course, it'd be another thing if we were the best darn seal clubbers in the world. Nobody on the other side of that issue would ever want to work with us. :)

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (5, Interesting)

PietjeJantje (917584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114463)

Somewhere there must be a dark cynical joke in this.
Here we have Linux, the accumulation of many volunteer hackers, and the only ones earning big, BIG money are... the lawyers.
The GPL didn't mention anything about THAT!

I know what GPL means (2, Funny)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115038)

Gynormous Profit for Lawyers

GPL v4.0 (3, Funny)

tomcres (925786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115344)

sneak peek at the beta of GPL v4.0...

"...Furthermore, since software wants to be completely free and unfettered, it should not be subject to the legal process. Any disputes concerning software licensed under this agreeement shall be decided by a CodeWars competition. Best 2 of 3. And it must be a GPL'd implementation of CodeWars..."

No Respect (2, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114466)

The real geniuses here are the SCO lawyers, for keeping this ridiculous dog & pony show going for as long as they have ... They deserve respect, grudging though it my be.

Frauds deserve nothing more than jail.

Re:No Respect (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114622)

Ah, but who's the fraud? The lawyers who are merely doing as they are being paid to do, or their clients who are paying them and calling the shots?

I freely admit that in a perfect world, no case as obviously devoid of merit would be taken on by any lawyer, but this is hardly a perfect world...

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114496)

The real geniuses here are the SCO lawyers, for keeping this ridiculous dog & pony show going for as long as they have, although I admit that the admiration I experience witnessing their work is generously laced with nausea and trepidation. When SCO's house of cards finally falls, it will be with a deafening crash amid roars of appreciation from the OSS crowd, but in the meantime, hats off to the talented lawyers that have managed to keep it standing this long. They deserve respect, grudging though it my be.

One begins to wonder if the SCO lawyers are closet SUSE freaks who are doing their best to keep the show running, ensuring SCO's future bankruptcy with their billable hours and frequent filings. I'm sure the Novell lawyers are no less pleased their counterparts are doing such a tremendous job on such a hopeless case, since they too are no doubt lining their pockets. I suspect when it's over, both sides will be laughing it up at the bar.

SCO's lawyers fell into Novell's trap (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114637)

Boies fucked up big-time.

Not surprising. If Boies was half the lawyer he thinks he is we'd have President Gore in the White House.

Groklaw's discussion [groklaw.net] posits how Novell's lawyers goaded Boies et al to add the Linux copyright claims to SCO v. Novell just to trigger this arbitration clause.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114796)

Methinks this gives the Novell lawyers a bit too much credit...

The real geniuses here are the SCO lawyers, for keeping this ridiculous dog & pony show going for as long as they have...


You don't know much about law, do you? Delaying is as easy as pushing pawns around. What's "plumb pleasin'" for PJ is that in this particular instance, SCO may have pushed up the wrong pawn in their 2nd Amended Complaint, opening themselves up to not fewer than 17 affirmative defenses deftly outlined by Novell's lawyers that they could have avoided had they been a little more on the ball. Hardly geniuses...

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (2, Interesting)

jhines (82154) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115031)

It is American tradition.

Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes.

It's a tradition, all right. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115077)

Actually this whole situation reminds me of a very different story [online-literature.com] ; this one's British.

Re:Who are the REAL pros here? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115115)

No; the only reason the whole SCO thing isn't over is that IBM and Novell want to see these cases right to the very end so that a) copyright and b) trademark concerns are resolved, e.g., IBM did in fact have the right to contribute independently-created code to Linux, and Novell indeed does own UNIX and SCO merely had the right to broker licensing, an agreement upon which they (SCO) did not make good on delivering those fees to the owners of the property.

I'm betting SCO is dead (that's a no brainer) and that IBM and Novell will be able to prove criminal intent and pierce the corporate veil. If I were Darl McBride I'd seriously consider leaving the country.

Befuddled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114395)

Why does SCO even bother to continue this charade? They didn't have anything to stand on when they started it and now it is getting worse by the day. I also can't see the reason why the judge in this case after seeing, hearing and reading all of the counter claims, etc... hasn't thrown this out and awarded victory to IBM/Novell - SuSE.

Re:Befuddled (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114559)

Why does SCO even bother to continue this charade?

Becuase they have been, and are being, paid for it. Microsoft donated very generously to SCO's cause in order to create an anticompetitive slander generator, and SCO is just delivering on what has been paid for.

And, of course, as long as SCO keeps up the charade, not only does SCO continue to get manna from heaven in the form of random mystery investment, but SCO also gets to sustain their business by constantly pumping their stock up and down-- whereas as soon as the lawsuit ends, SCO pretty much has to go insolvent, since SCO has no viable products but does have a number of pending and scary-looking counterclaims as a result of their PR antics...

Re:Befuddled (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115173)

No products? Who are you trying to kid? Linux isn't free [darlmcbride.com] and SCO owns it! Darl McBride [darlmcbride.com] says so, and he's God (in his own mind).

Two reasons (4, Informative)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114583)

Primary reason is that it's a ploy by Microsoft [eweek.com] to discredit open source (Google for "Baystar" to learn more). Even though the case has no merit, they want to plant a bug in the ear of every PHB out there. "Doesn't Linux have some kinda legal trouble?" In that light, they have been successful somewhat.

Secondary reason, it's a stock [zdnet.com] scam [linuxtoday.com] . The longer they keep the company going, the longer they can bilk the shareholders for more cash. It's probably one of the most blatant examples of insider trading ever, but since it's small potatoes it has somehow flown under the radar. Here's hoping that changes soon.

Re:Two reasons (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114987)

I am undr the personal belief that when all the cases are finally closed the SEC will step in and see that SCO knew all along that they were lying and charge SCO apporiately.

Under Darl SCO has almost doubled the number of available shares. It's the only reason their market value has crashed yet. Of course i your one of the 4 million shorters who bought in above $10 a share you stand to make a lot of money. This is well documented by those watching.

Re:Befuddled (0)

KDN (3283) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114676)

Why does SCO even bother to continue this charade?

Why? SCO is the expendable pit bull that Microsoft hired to do its dirty work. Microsoft realized that it could not win the war directly, so they invested in this company. I'm sure one of the unofficial requirements for getting this investiment was that they (SCO) run the company into the ground going after Linux. It wouldn't surprise me if BillyG has a swiss bank account with Daryl's name on it to as congradulations for a job well done.

I dont see it (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114402)

RFA [wikipedia.org] or am I spending too much time there?

Not quite. (3, Informative)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114408)

"Novell has filed a motion to stay SCO's claims against Novell until the outcome of this arbitration. So now it looks like Linux users are protected both through the APA between Novell and SCO, but the UnitedLinux agreement as well."

No, it looks like Linux users are protected through both the APA and UnitedLinix depending on the outsome of this motion. You can file motions all you'd like. That doesn't mean they'll be carried out.

Re:Not quite. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114521)

Linux users are also protected by the fact that SCO holds no copyright and has been unable to identify infringing code in the Linux kernel. It might only be a small detail in this litigeous world of ours, but it's details like this that are important when you're paying defence lawyers a fortune because of plaintiff's brazen abuse of the legal system.

Re:Not quite. (5, Informative)

Kilz (741999) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114526)

Courts like arbitration. The odds that this motion will fail are in the slim and none category. If you sign a contract with an arbitration clause, bank on going to arbitration. Arbitration was a term of a contract SCO's aleged predisser in interest signed. To get that contract not used agaisnt them they would basicly have to say they are not the predisser in interest. Since all of SCO's lawsuits are based on that fact, it isnt going to happen.
One other thing in that motion is that Novell asked for the money from the Microsoft and Sun deals to be placed in trust. This because the apa contract says that sco isn't supposed to be able to grant Unix licensees without Novells approval. If this happens, good bye SCO.

Re:Not quite. (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115339)

Please tell me that "predisser" is an obscure legal term, and not an attempt at "predecessor" gone horribly wrong.

Technically true (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114589)

You can file motions all you'd like. That doesn't mean they'll be carried out.

However, arbitration clauses are, for all practical purposes, automatically upheld by courts. It's not just the law, it's a well-established way to reduce the workload of horribly overworked judges.

SCOX hosed either way... (5, Interesting)

rkhalloran (136467) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114414)

Novell has claimed the UNIX copyrights never went to SCOX/Caldera because they didn't go to Santa Cruz that Caldera acquired. And with this they can claim whatever copyrights SCOX *does* have are subject to the terms of the UnitedLinux agreement with SuSE that Novell now owns.

Rock, hard place, SCOX.

Re:SCOX hosed either way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114508)

Rock, hard place, SCOX.

So, a hard place is caught between a rock and a SCO?

Man, sucks to be that hard place.

Re:SCOX hosed either way... (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114816)

Rock, hard place, SCOX.

Methinks you meant it more like:

Rock, SCOX, hard place.

UL (5, Funny)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114448)

I knew that some good would come out of UnitedLinux some day. *dodges flames*

Yahoo! It's Darl... (4, Funny)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114454)

McBride! The rootinest tootinest outlaw ever to rustle *nix code [newscryer.com] !

Disclaimer: Yahoo! is a registered trademark of Yahoo!

Re:Yahoo! It's Darl... (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114823)

All Hat
No Cattle.

--
BMO

Contracts :o\ (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114456)

Contracts aren't really what make businesses work, it's the relationships.

If you have to fall back to pointing at the contract and saying "but you agreed," it means the business relationship is fuxxored... and not only are you going to have to win a contract lawsuit, you're going to have to reasses the relationship between the companies.

Obviously, SCO is an anomaly, but the effect is the same. Relationships were broken and contracts aren't going to stop the damage, merely mitigate it.

Re:Contracts :o\ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114684)

If you have to fall back to pointing at the contract and saying "but you agreed," it means the business relationship is fuxxored... and not only are you going to have to win a contract lawsuit, you're going to have to reasses the relationship between the companies.

Ummm, I think United Linux is a bit past the point of reassessing the relationship between the companies. It's somewhere between dead and Debian...

Re:Contracts :o\ (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115266)

It's somewhere between dead and Debian.


Isn't that like saying "It's somewhere between zero and zero?"

(to you Debian fans out there: I'm KIDDING.)

Must .... resist .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114866)

He, is the emphasis in 'reasses' where I think it is?

Re:Contracts :o\ (2, Insightful)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115023)

Alternately, one could say that a sign of a good healthy economic relationship between companies is a clear, well written contract that doesn't leave room for confusion. A good relationship is when everyone is clear on their duties and benefits. A contract is the written manifestation of this.

Personally, I prefer to deal on a handshake basis with people I know, respect, and trust. I like to have a personal relationship with clients. For the times this is not possible, I know I need a contract or a deal memo. (I've also taken the time to learn to read a contract, and I don't hesitate to strike out provisions or add provisions in "boiler plate" contracts before signing when I don't agree to them. Does this lose me any business? Not business I'd really want to take.)

Re:Contracts :o\ (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115176)

"Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with"

Chris Sontag of SCOX.

Uh, dude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15115221)

If you have to fall back to pointing at the contract and saying "but you agreed," it means the business relationship is fuxxored... and not only are you going to have to win a contract lawsuit, you're going to have to reasses the relationship between the companies.

I think the "business relationship" between Novell and SCO was already kind of screwed when SCO switched their business focus from software development to legislation; started wildly slandering Linux and Novell in the popular press; sent out threatening-sounding letters to all the fortune 500 companies presenting the argument that one of Novell's chief products (linux) was illegal; and sued Novell on multiple counts because Novell publicly stated they owned something (UNIX) they really do appear to own.

I mean, after all of that, Novell trying to hold SCO to a contract doesn't seem like such a big deal.

Besides this, it isn't like there's much of a business relationship to salvage. The contracts were originally signed between a company named SUSE and a company named Caldera, as part of a business venture called UnitedLinux. SUSE got bought by Novell, Caldera changed its name to SCO, and UnitedLinux failed miserably and was shelved. There is no relationship left. The contracts, however, still hold.

This has nothing to do with business relationships. This is just about, SCO accused and sued Novell for copyright infringement while bound by a contract indemnifying Novell of such a thing. Now they have to face the consequences.

What phase is this in? (1)

cavalierlwt (764097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114473)

Are we still at the point where SCO won't tell the court what specific lines code has been code have been 'stolen'? I haven't been following this, last time I looked I thought this was pretty much all over because SCO was unable to present any evidence even as to which lines of code were being used without permission.

Re:What phase is this in? (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114530)

It's in the SCO-needs-to-put-up-or-shut-up stage

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200604050 02552215 [groklaw.net]
IBM says to the Judge
SCO does not provide a complete set of reference points (version, file and line) for any of the 198 Items. Astonishingly, SCO fails specifically to identify a single line of System V, AIX or Dynix, and Linux code for any of the 198 Items. SCO does not identify specific System V, AIX, or Dynix version(s) or file(s) with respect to more than a few of the Items. Even specific versions and files of Linux are omitted with respect to many of the Items.
...
IV. THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY IS TO LIMIT SCO'S CLAIMS.
...
As discussed above, SCO has failed to provide IBM and its experts the most basic information needed for IBM to evaluate SCO's claims and prepare its defense. With respect to the 198 Items at issue, SCO has declined, as a practical matter, to tell IBM what is in dispute.
...
  We believe, respectfully, that SCO's failure to specify the 198 Items amounts to bad faith.

Wrong case (2, Informative)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114633)

The article is about SCO vs Novell, not IBM.

I can't wait to see SCO get handed its head in any case [sic], but these are two separate complaints from SCO.

Re:Wrong case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114956)

I know it's the 'wrong' case, but I was responding to the original parent post.

Re:What phase is this in? (1)

cavalierlwt (764097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114638)

It's simply amazing that something this crazy can drag on for this long.

Re:What phase is this in? (1)

NeuralClone (860360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114696)

Which lines of code? All of them of course!

Other fun details about these filings (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114494)

  1. If/when Novell gets their motion four of SCO's five claims will get booted out of court and off to arbitration-- but all of Novell's counterclaims against SCO get to stay in court
  2. One of SCO's claims was for "unfair competition". Novell had to file a motion just to ask exactly what law they broke!!! [groklaw.net] SCO has gone beyond specifying laws broken but not being able to specify exactly what had been stolen, and now into the realm of insisting "well, they did something illegal" without being able to explain exactly what.

Re:Other fun details about these filings (1)

cavalierlwt (764097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114517)

I've got to get in on some action like this. I think I'll sue Microsoft, and just alledge that they did "something bad to me" Can't say what it is, just that it was 'bad' and they owe me money.

Microsoft did bad things to you? (2, Funny)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115110)

Did Clippy touch you in the naughty place? It's okay, you're among friends here.

A Shining Light, not! (1)

berenixium (920883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114542)

Time after time after time, etc. I can't believe I'm still reading news about a company that is desperate for attention, any attention, in the media spotlight and does so solely to boost their stock rating. That's it. Any file motioned, it's a marketing ploy rather than having any credibility or legal component for justice, to keep the ol' shareholders happy.

$CO are perhaps *THE* definitive example of how not to run a company and just how much of a Judas an institution can be. Enjoy spending your diminishing pieces of silver, Darl(ings).

Re:A Shining Light, not! (1)

onecheapgeek (964280) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114829)

$CO are perhaps *THE* definitive example of how not to run a company and just how much of a Judas an institution can be.

Wouldn't that now mean that Novell told them to file this suit...?

Re:A Shining Light, not! (1)

serbanp (139486) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115101)

Was the new evangel finding posted on /. ? If not, your comment's meaning is certainly lost for most of /.-ers.

Re:A Shining Light, not! (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114856)

$CO are perhaps *THE* definitive example of how not to run a company and just how much of a Judas an institution can be.

I'm no friend of SCO, but I don't see the "Judas" metaphor. They haven't really betrayed anyone as much as they've tried to re-write history, driven by avarice and desperation.

Re:A Shining Light, not! (1)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114959)

I'm no friend of SCO, but I don't see the "Judas" metaphor.

Considering that SCO used to be Caldera Linux and SCO is now doing everything in their power to destroy Linux (and any company using it), I think I can see the "Judas" reference as being valid :)

Re:A Shining Light, not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15115008)

But Judas was just doing what Jesus told him to do!

Re:A Shining Light, not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15115076)

ROFL! You said "$CO", using the hilarious resemblance between the letter 'S' and the dollar symbol '$" to imply S-CO is only interested in money. Too funny! Do you have a blog? I'd love to subscribe to it.

When will it all end? (1)

flight_master (867426) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114549)

I've been hearing about SCO for years... now, when will they finally quit annoying the Linux community? They haven't gotten anywhere so far, so what makes them thing they'll achieve something now?

Re:When will it all end? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114845)

Well, SCO isn't about winning. It's about a big con. The SCO board and lawyers got cash circuituitously from Microsoft to attack Linux, and that's what they're doing. They also want to bolster their stock price to sell for a profit.

Re:When will it all end? (1)

flight_master (867426) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115138)

Thanks for clarifying! That in itself shows how badly the US needs legal reform :-P

Haven't gotten anywhere? YMMV (2, Interesting)

Luban Doyle (702882) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115131)

They haven't gotten anywhere so far, so what makes them thing they'll achieve something now?

When Darl took over as CEO it was estimated that the company would be bankrupt within 7 months. Since then they have received $60 million in PIPE funding. They did have to pay back $13 million to Baystar, but that's still a pretty good payday for making a bunch of claims that so far haven't been substantiated.

It gets much, much worse (5, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114554)

This is one of those "knew or should have known" slam dunks. Judges aren't terribly fond of finding lawsuits frivilous, but a case where there was a clear contract estopping the plaintiff from the exact actions they took goes well over the bar. Boies, Schiller & Flexner could end up paying all of IBM's, Novell's, and Red Hat's legal bills.

Then there's the SEC disclosure requirements -- the fact that SCOX' stock runup happened while the Management sat on a contract that gutted the basis of the whole lawsuit lottery makes them personally liable. Even the SEC might wake up for that one, but the NYAG's office must be smelling blood in the water.

Re:It gets much, much worse (2, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114653)

But can MS get caught in all that? I mean, that's a lot of liability to hit a tight wallet (SCO's basically broke, I think). So if the Baystar/MS funding angle that IBM is working pans out, is there a way some of the "leftover" liability can hit Microsoft?

Re:It gets much, much worse (2, Informative)

stevey (64018) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114657)

Not quite.

This "new" contract revelation only applies to the updated/new claim brought by SCO - it doesnt spoil their ongoing IBM case with regard to their other (bogus) claims.

Re:It gets much, much worse (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114720)

But if MS is found to be linked to SCO, and Novell/SUSE winds up being owed serious cash, will they be able to go after MS, even while the IBM case is ongoing?

Re:It gets much, much worse (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115322)

Unlikely - remember, Microsoft does offer UNIX products (UNIX for Windows, under UNIX licensing). Their transaction was legitimate and while one can speculate that they did this and released UNIX for Windows as a way to fund SCO's efforts to undermine the UNIX/Unix market, it's purely speculation and anything regarding timing of licensing UNIX can only be regarded as circumstantial evidence, at best.

Now, if you could unearth the equivalent of the Halloween Documents, that's a different matter, but you would definitely need more than speculation to make the legal connection.

Re:It gets much, much worse (2, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114982)

This "new" contract revelation only applies to the updated/new claim brought by SCO - it doesnt spoil their ongoing IBM case with regard to their other (bogus) claims.

Actually, it does. A finding against them is in effect a judicial finding since Judge Kimball will effectively read the arbitration ruling into his Court's record.

"So?" you say. However, the UL agreement included sublicensing rights. Which means that any IP Caldera had that appeared in the UL distribution was sublicensed under the GPL -- and IBM therefore has rights regardless of SCOX' claim that they ceased distributing Linux (OK, that was proven bogus. Still ....)

Re:It gets much, much worse (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115340)

regardless of SCOX' claim that they ceased distributing Linux(OK, that was proven bogus. Still ....)


It is indeed bogus. An official SCO site still offers Linux: http://www.darlmcbride.com/ [darlmcbride.com]

It is an official SCO site. Check out the whois on the domain, and the legal notice on the site!

Look carefully at the details (3, Informative)

Silent sound (960334) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115476)

Actually, it does. Look at GrokLaw [groklaw.net] and notice the exact things SCO is asking for from the arbiter.

The "new" contract revelation doesn't actually change the details of the suit any. What it does change is the venue. As a result of the "new" contract clauses being brought into play, a small part of the entire SCO-Novell-IBM-Redhat rigamarole, specifically an old contract between Caldera and SUSE, now gets kicked entirely out of the court system and dumped into arbitration. This is important because the rules of arbitration and the rules of a court of law are quite different. Specifically, arbitration is speedy, and hard to delay. Considering the complexity of this situation, and SCO's determination to delay things as much as possible, speed is very important. Remember that the IBM vs SCO court case is still tied up just with IBM trying to get SCO to specify exactly what exactly it was that SCO thinks IBM stole.

Basically, before Novell played the arbitration card, this contract was still important, but it was waiting in line behind a long, LONG list of other issues, and thus ran the risk of nobody seriously looking at it for years or, if SCO self-destructed before anybody could complete discovery issues, not at all. Now, suddenly, this contract is cutting to the front of the line. And that means that certain issues that might otherwise have been decided in another place or in another way are going to be decided here, now, because of this contract.

Most significantly. From Groklaw:
In particular the United Linux members agreed that each member would have an irrevocable, perpetual, and worldwide license to use and unlimitedly exploit any intellectual property rights of the other members in the UnitedLinux Software, which would be transferred to the LLC for this very purpose... Paragraphs 81 and 82 are interesting. They point out that Caldera didn't contribute the Linux kernel to UL, but its infringement claims, although vague, appear to involve the kernel. The [UnitedLinux contracts], therefore, preclude SCO from asserting copyright infringement claims against the Linux kernel, no matter how you examine the issue, and the document does so every possible way, including the requirements of the GPL
Note that these contracts would have been signed after Caldera had already purchased their UNIX properties.

So, if SUSE gets their way, then-- possibly even before IBM gets the chance to complete summary judgements in their case-- this arbitration will rule that SCO has by contract forfeited their right to assert intellectual property claims against the Linux kernel, and the nature of the situation could make that rule apply not just to Novell, but to everyone. Courts can consider arbitration rulings to be binding. So this absolutely can have effect on the IBM case.

And if SCO's long-standing claims against Linux are short-circuited by a legally binding declaration that SCO had forfeited the right to bring claims against the Linux kernel by contracts signed before the allegations even started, that is definitely, as the top level post puts it, a "knew or should have known" kind of situation.

Re:It gets much, much worse (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114906)

Not fond of firvolous lawsuits?

Man, do you live in the US, home of frivolous lawsuits where judges almost ALWAYS rules in favour of those that file them. People that spill hot coffee on themselves and win millions is just the tip of the ice berg. The US legal system is like a lottery. Just get a slimy enough lawyer and a big enough company to sue against and you're almost guaranteed some financial gain, even if its just to get the case out of the media quickly.

The only reason why SCO has lasted this long is that judges don't care if the lawsuit is frivolous. They are impartial. If one team of lawyers can make a convincing argument over another, the judge will rule in favour of it, regardless of how vapid and frivolous the suit is. If judges were not fond of frivolous lawsuits, SCO would have been tossed out on their ears long ago.

Re:It gets much, much worse (2, Informative)

BacOs (33082) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115603)

It's amazing how often the facts of the McDonald's coffee case [centerjd.org] get misrepresented.

Maybe... (0, Offtopic)

JavaFTW++ (964323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114612)

Maybe now SuSe will be able to actually release a distrubution that doesn't need half it's packages upgraded oob. At least one would hope :P

novell lawyers (1, Informative)

mytrip (940886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114634)

I thought this was pretty funny from the article. Man, do not mess with Novell. I never worked for lawyers as good as these guys, and it's a plumb pleasin' pleasure to watch them work.

SUCKS!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114693)

First this retarded "nice" article and now we're hunting for SCO stories again?

Man, am I glad I'm anonymous here...

Now all we need is the youtube video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15114758)

Now all we need is the youtube video, of the 400 pound convict ass raping Darl McBribe, I cant wait

Re:Now all we need is the youtube video (1)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15114917)

Youtube? Wouldn't that be more appropriately named "Darl'stube"?

Comments... (1)

turtleAJ (910000) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115137)

I'd like to commend /. for changing SUSE's logo... about time.

As to the article:

WooHaaa! What a mess...

Novell hired the APA? (2, Funny)

tomcres (925786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115384)

It'll be cool to watch Farooq and Bradshaw kick SCO's butts!

I.T.Y.S.:2003 - origin,ownership,copyright + GPL (1)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 8 years ago | (#15115424)

9th June 2003 What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL [slashdot.org] .
SCO's case is dead in the water and Darl is possibly facing criminal charges of false claims to the copyright office and SEC.

Re:I.T.Y.S.:2003 - origin,ownership,copyright + GP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15115513)

Excellent work indeed... kudos.

Seth, O Seth! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15115556)

Seth, where are you? Its been so long since you've blasted the non-believers. Surely you still think that SCO will win?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?