×

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!

Judge To SCO — Quit Whining

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the and-wipe-your-nose dept.

The Courts 156

chiark writes, "Back in June, the magistrate judge presiding over SCO vs IBM gutted SCO's claims, as discussed on Slashdot. SCO cried 'foul,' appealed to the District Judge, and today that judge has ruled against SCO, succinctly and concisely affirming every point of the original damning judgement. Also included in this ruling is the news that the Novell vs. SCO trial will go first: 'After deciding the pending dispositive motions in this case, and after deciding the dispositive motions in Novell, which should be fully briefed in May 2007, the court will set a trial date for any remaining claims in this action.' It's notable that the judge conducted the review using a more exhaustive standard than required out of an 'abundance of caution,' and still found against SCO." As Groklaw asks and answers: "What does it mean? It means SCO is toast."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

156 comments

SCO to Judge (3, Funny)

Artie_Effim (700781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051060)

IBM stole our whine in 1992, we have documents to prove it too, right over here, near the othe IBM documents ..... BWHAAAAAAA

Re:SCO to Judge (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051294)

Looks like you're missing the letter "r" from "othe". Let me guess... you're using an IBM ThinkPad laptop and IBM stole the letter "r"? ;)

This is the time... (5, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051062)

I better act fast! This is the time to sell my remaining SCO stock before the tsunami strikes.

Re:This is the time... (0, Offtopic)

Kopl (1027670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051134)

You once bought stock in SCO, and haven't sold it yet?

I wonder if I could just wait until the final court case and sell it short like crazy.

Re:This is the time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051950)

I wonder if I could just wait until the final court case and sell it short like crazy.


I doubt it. By that time, there won't be enough float to support short selling SCOX.

Heh. My captcha was "unpaid". How fitting.

Re:This is the time... (1)

rhaas (804642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053482)

I've been trying to short it for, oh, a year or more now, but each time I've checked, there have been no shortable shares available, at least at my brokerage.

And laughing all the way to the bank. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17052254)

Note that if you bought the stock before SCO sued Linux, you'd still be making a profit if you sold today [yahoo.com] .


Seems in retrospect this lawsuit was one of the best things that the execs there could have done (for themselves, considering their bonuses and stock over the past few years); as well as being the best $86 million Microsoft ever spent [linuxelectrons.com] for keeping Linux away from many companies with this FUD until they got a chance to launch Longhorn.

that's what he said? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051074)

I read the article and I didn't see "quit whining" anywhere.

I realize that was a crude paraphrasing, but a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

Re:that's what he said? (5, Funny)

fotbr (855184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051100)

This is slashdot. Neutral does not exist with respect to linux, microsoft, and sco. Other topics may vary.

Re:that's what he said? (4, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052188)

. . .a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

What, and ruin it's reputation? I don't think so.

KFG

Re:that's what he said? (5, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052524)

a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

I once tried to explain the SCO case to someone. They thought I was BSing them. The case is simply so screwed up from pretty much any rational (and non-scamming) perspective that even if Slashdot were neutral, it should stand up and say, "HEY! This is messed up". Sometimes I worry we get so caught up in NPOV and neutrality that we forget that there is objective truth, and the objective truth is that SCO is making dozens of claims it can't back up, to the judge's annoyance.

Re:that's what he said? (-1, Troll)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052586)

I realize that was a crude paraphrasing, but a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

You do know that this was the place where guys with gaping assholes and gay niggers from outer space got popular post topics, right? ;-)

Re:that's what he said? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17053000)

Jeez, Kramer.

Re:that's what he said? (1)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052914)

Why?

People on here do no want neutral, there are a thousand other places for that. People here share a common opinion and expect coverage based on that.

News doesnt have to be neutral, it just shouldnt claim it is when it isnt. Slashdot has never claimed to be neutral.

Re:that's what he said? (3, Insightful)

badasscat (563442) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053626)

I read the article and I didn't see "quit whining" anywhere.

The court finds that SCO failed to comply with the court's previous discovery-related Orders and Rule 26(e), that SCO acted willfully, that SCO's conduct has resulted in prejudice to IBM, and that this resultthe (sic) inability of SCO to use the evidence at issue to prove its claims should come as no surprise to SCO.

I would paraphrase that last part as "quit whining". SCO has repeatedly claimed that the court has not provided them with either a) enough time, b) enough leeway in deposition, and c) enough clarity in its orders. That was basically SCO's defense in this motion; that they did all they could given the information that they had from the court. The court has now told them that their defense in this motion doesn't hold water and worse, that they should know it. How else would you paraphrase that?

I realize that was a crude paraphrasing, but a more neutral/appropriate headline might make this a more reputable site.

What is neutral about this? SCO just got their butts whipped by the court, again, as they should have. News itself is rarely objective, and Slashdot has never pretended to be an objective news source. This isn't about providing balanced reporting on the SCO case. This is about SCO being in the wrong, and the court - for the second time - bitch-slapping them for being in the wrong and for knowing they were in the wrong and wasting everybody's time and energy on this case.

What net for SCO? (3, Insightful)

mudetroit (855132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051090)

The chief qestion here as the litigation begins to play ut is when do the investors in SCO begin ulling out of what appears ever more strongly to be a losing battle? Or do they continue to just throw good money after bad and accept the loss on what maybe no better then a lottery's chance of winning anything?

Re:What net for SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051426)

Right...is floating SCO really cheaper for M$ than just buying magazine space?

Re:What net for SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17053420)

They would have a greater chance at winning the lottery (top prize).

Re:What net for SCO? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17054166)

Wouldn't it be best for SCO to simply drop the suit and try to get back into the technology business? Or would that just firmly seat the hook for the expected counter-suit from IBM to reclaim damages from the frivolous lawsuit?

I'm not understanding why SCO would continue to pump any of their few remaining pennies into a lawsuit, when the judge's actions are clearly saying "DROP THIS NOW, YOU DAMN IDIOTS."

It seems to me that this entire suit is nothing now but a personal battle for Darl and his cohorts. Have they completely forgotten that they are supposed to be wisely using their shareholders' money to turn a profit? Why don't the shareholders vote him out in order to salvage whatever money they have left? Even ignoring the financial impact of the suit, he's managed to turn a once-profitable company into a penny stock as well as a laughing stock. If I were an investor, I'd be mad enough to want a change.

Groklaw rules (5, Interesting)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051104)

I like this line from the Groklaw article:

What's worse for SCO is, Kimball did a de novo review, out of an "abundance of caution," so they can't even appeal that issue.

Yep, SCO is toast. Please move on, nothing to see here.

Re:Groklaw rules (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051268)

I wish they had talked about Novell vs IBM going first

IBM & Novell have both been saying: No, you go first.

IIRC, IBM wants Novell to go first to settle the copyright issues, which would make large portions of SCO's case against IBM moot.

And now that I think about it, I don't remember why Novell wanted IBM to go first. I know SCO wanted the IBM case to go first, just to delay things even more.

Re:Groklaw rules (5, Informative)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051344)

The primary reason Novell wanted IBM to go first was probably because it meant that IBM's lawyers would have to be paid, and not Novell's.

Re:Groklaw rules (1)

sunwukong (412560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053284)

Just a bit of paranoia -- any chance that pressure from a certain new partner on Novell can upset IBMs case?

Re:Groklaw rules (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053448)

Unlikely. It doesn't truly matter to IBM who owns the copyright on the original code: They just have to prove they didn't use any of it in Linux. (Though if SCO doesn't own it then their claim can be thrown out based on the fact that they have no cause for complaint.)

Jon Katz and SCO in the same week? (5, Funny)

s20451 (410424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051108)

What is this, 2003? I'm looking forward to the latest press release from the the Iraqi information minister.

Re:Jon Katz and SCO in the same week? (2, Funny)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051242)

"We made them drink poison last night and Darl McBride's lawyers and his great employees gave IBM a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly." ;)

friends suing friends oh my I like that judge (2, Funny)

sjwest (948274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051166)

Sco v Novell - I bet Steve Ballmers getting a phone call from Ron - 'what do i do Stevie ???'.

And the Downward Spiral Begins (5, Informative)

cacepi (100373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051174)

And the Downward Spiral begins; SCO stock down 10%; rated 'HOLD - Dangerous Risk/Reward Rating.' [yahoo.com]

Your goose is downright cooked, SCO.

Wow....look at that stock chart (1)

tacokill (531275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051604)

Check this long-term view of SCO's stock. [yahoo.com]

Wanna guess when they first started pursuing this litigation?


And why hasn't there been some kind of investigation as to whether SCO did this specifically to manipulate the price of it's shares? Sure seems interesting when you look at this chart. We all know and feel it. But I don't know if you could PROVE manipulation so nothing will probably come of it.

Re:And the Downward Spiral Begins (3, Insightful)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051620)

And the Downward Spiral begins; SCO stock down 10%; rated 'HOLD - Dangerous Risk/Reward Rating.'

Your goose is downright cooked, SCO.


I'd truly love to believe this about their goose being cooked (and props to cacepi for correctly using "your" and not "you're"), but experience tells me otherwise. Why? Neither investors nor stock brokers/analysts understand technology or the law. SCOX will most likely hang on until the September 2007 trial. I'd love to be wrong, but until SCOX starts trading at under a dollar a share and facing potential delisting action, I see the stock surviving through next year. You have to love broker talk where despite the "dangerous risk/reward rating" they are advising people to neither buy more of the stock nor to sell what they have. That's what "hold" means.

SCOX has lost 25 cents at the time of writing. Unless it plummets today or tomorrow, I think unfortunately it's going to be around for a while. It's still trading at over $2 a share.

Re:And the Downward Spiral Begins (2, Informative)

jeschust (910560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051858)

Stock analysts traditionally never give "Sell" recommendations. Therefore, a rating of "Hold" is the lowest an analyst is willing to rate any given stock.

Re:And the Downward Spiral Begins (2, Informative)

cacepi (100373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052442)

Neither investors nor stock brokers/analysts understand technology or the law.
No, but they do know financials, and the numbers ain't good: a negative EBITDA, negative returns on investment and equity, negative cash flow and very little free cash - how are they going to pay for one trial, let alone two? - means a hell of a lot of bad writing on the wall for SCO.

I honestly don't see what SCO can do to turn things around even if it didn't have these trials over their heads. Short of another infusion of quick cash - which ain't happening now that Microsoft has moved to different fronts (Novell) - SCO is pwned.

Hard.

Re:And the Downward Spiral Begins (1)

cfulmer (3166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052676)

There is a theory in economics, the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" that effectively says that everything that's publicly known about a company is reflected in that company's market price. Suppose that you *knew for a fact* that SCO's stock would be shooting through the floor -- you would short that stock, which would, if you and several other equally smart people did the same, drive the price through the floor. But, there's a reason that you're not doing that -- you do not know for a fact. After all, there is some small chance that SCO may still win, or that everything will settle. The theory suggests that while a typical investor or analyst may not know that much about what SCO is up against, there are enough out there who do know that they have set the price appropriately.

I'm guessing that few individual investors are invested in SCO any more -- they have long since sold their shares. It's probably mainly held by a small set of very sophisticated investors (hedge funds, for example) who are taking a gamble. And, these players certainly know what the risks are.

Re:And the Downward Spiral Begins (2, Interesting)

statusbar (314703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051690)

<conspiracy type="crazy">
MAYBE this court case is why microsoft gave Novell the money...to subvert Novell's testimony, giving SCO a win...
</onspiracy> --jeffk++

At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi (1)

imaginaryelf (862886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052426)

Microsoft gave Novell money because, in the words of Darth Maul, "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi."

Microsoft got tired of waiting for their puppet SCO to spread FUD, so they just went ahead and did it themselves, telling the Linux community recently that everyone had better pay protection money, because Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

There may not be a trial (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051232)

My favorite part of the judgement is: "After deciding the pending dispositive motions in this case, and after deciding the dispositive motions in Novell, which should be fully briefed in May 2007, the court will set a trial date for any remaining claims in this action."

A trial date for any remaining claims ... I have a feeling that Judge K. thinks there may be no remaining claims after the dispositive motions. What are the dispositive motions you ask? Those are things that can be decided as a matter of law because the facts of the case are not in dispute. The judge can rule on those without going to a jury. There is a possibility that the judge's decisions will completely gut all of SCO's case. It is also possible that the judge will decide that all of SCO's money has to go into a constructive trust because SCO has basically stolen tens of millions of dollars from Novell. That would bankrupt SCO. All the remaining issues would then be settled by SCO's bankruptcy trustee. The bankruptcy trustee (completely independent from SCO's current management) will see no point in continuing the litigation and will settle on whatever terms the creditors (IBM and Novell mostly) dictate.

There is also the distinct possibility that SCO and BSF (their lawyers) will be punished for bringing a case before the court that has zero merit. It is a frivolous case and lawyers can be debarred for that kind of conduct.

Re:There may not be a trial (3, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051404)

IBM wants this to go to trial. They've had many opportunities to make this case go away, and they haven't even tried. They don't want SCO to surrender, they want to crush SCO.

They don't actually need a trial to do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051816)

The bankruptcy trustee will agree to settle all the counterclaims out of court. SCO will be crushed. IBM, Novell and Red Hat will get whatever declarations they need or want. The result will be the same as if they had gone to court.

What hasn't come up yet is the matter of personal liability for the idiots behind the SCO case. Darl made a bunch of extremely stupid (in the sense of breaking the law) statements and those will come back at him. I also see trouble for the lawyers. The lawyers could be punished directly by Judge K. They may also have to deal with the bar association. Darl, on the other hand, may need a trial.

Re:There may not be a trial (4, Interesting)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051826)

IBM wants this to go to trial. They've had many opportunities to make this case go away, and they haven't even tried. They don't want SCO to surrender, they want to crush SCO.

While IBM very much wants to crush SCo they would prefer the crushing happens before trial. Anything can happen with a jury. But they have filed Motions for Summary Judgement which is the core of the dispositive motions the GP talked about. (AC or not- he knows the law.)

To elaborate further, in Summary Judgement the side argues that even if all the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the opposition, they would still lose the case. Given the lack of evidence forthsoming from SCO, it would not surprise me in the least if most of the SJ motions were granted in IBM's favor. Indeed, a not unlikely scenario would see the trial proceeding only on IBM's Counterclaims!

Re:There may not be a trial (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052058)

Right. The important point here is that IBM didn't settle. SCO will never see a dime. IBM does not "negotiate with terrorists." And now every pissant company trying the same will know that.

The only tragedy is that SCO insiders seem to have made out very well executing a seemingly legal pump-n-dump scheme.

Re:There may not be a trial (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052934)

The key point being that although the case does not go before a jury the disposition of the matter is handled by a ruling of the court, not by settlement. SCO does not surrender, they lose, which is what IBM wanted, and they lose in such a way that they are not merely crushed, but obliterated. Oh, and derided as well. That's the part that's going to be fun to watch. The kicking of the corpse.

As others have pointed out remuneration to IBM for their counterclaims are likely going to have to be made through SCO's bankruptcy procedings. What assets does SCO have on the table after all the money is gone?

The UNIX rights, man. The UNIX rights! (whatever the hell they actually are). They're either going to IBM or back to Novell.

KFG

Re:There may not be a trial (1)

debrain (29228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053866)

Yes, quite right. In general: A summary judgement happens when there is no question of fact, as facts can be decided by a jury.

Where there is only left a question of law, a judge may make a ruling on that law without entering into a fact-finding portion of a trial (via a judge or jury determination of fact).

There is great precedent value in seeing this case through, as a matter of jurisprudence, certainty, and predictability with respect to open source.

Re:There may not be a trial (1)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052488)

Absolutely correct. They just want it to go to trial on their counterclaims, and not on SCO's initial claims.

Based on TFA's news, it appears they got what they wished.

It's clear that IBM saw the SCO suit as a dangerous precedent, and wanted to use the opportunity to make a precedent of their own. Their dependence on Linux for their business required it.

This has always been part of the ongoing IBM vs. Microsoft battle, which began back in the days of the OS/2 split.

Re:There may not be a trial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17052698)

Nope. They want to establish credibility. With the Open Source community and with all the software partners with which they share code.

If IBM were to "make this case go away" without a clear verdict that IBM did do nothing wrong, noone would ever accept IBMs code for anything, and nobody would share code with IBM anymore. Too risky that the code gets misused.

By establishing that IBM did *not* donate SCOs code to Linux, IBM is *proving* that chinese walls exist within the company, making sure that no code is used outside the parameters set by the license that goes with that code.

There will be a clear verdict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17053086)

The judges rulings on the dispositive motions are verdicts. Such verdicts are even better than if jury verdicts because they usually make better precidents. The issues have gone to trial and will be decided, it's just that there may be no issues left to take before a jury.

One of the issues that the open source community cares most about is IBM's counterclaim 10. That's the one that asks for a declaration that there is no Unix code in Linux. IIRC IBM is asking for a summary judgement on that one. Bottom line: don't worry, you'll get your clear unambiguous verdicts.

Here's a link to a story about counterclaim 10. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/15/16 27245 [slashdot.org]

Re:There may not be a trial (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051756)

Oh, I think there will be remaining claims, from reading Groklaw a lot. It's just that they'll all be counter-claims.

Re:There may not be a trial (3, Insightful)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 7 years ago | (#17054222)

There is also the distinct possibility that SCO and BSF (their lawyers) will be punished for bringing a case before the court that has zero merit. It is a frivolous case and lawyers can be debarred for that kind of conduct.

That is an outcome I would very much like to see (disbarrment of the lawyers). The lawyers involved should be disbarred and they should be charged and found guilty of felony conspiracy (as well as the corporate officers of SCO). They should never again be allowed to hold any position of public trust, not in the law, not as bank tellers, not even as a call center customer service representatives. The law firm should be broken up, its offices razed, and the rubble should be sown with salt.

If lawyers in this country were required to live up to their responsibilities as Officers of the Court, we would all be better off. This case is proving to be such an egregious abuse of the legal system that action must be taken against the lawyers involved, since to allow them to walk away would shatter the foundation of the rule of law beyond this society's ability to repair it. That would mean it would become necessary for many of America's people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with others and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. Thank you Mr Jefferson. No one in two hundred thirty years has said that better than you did.

The law was never intended to be a club that you can use in an attempt to extort money from IBM or any other company or person. The law is intended to be a set of rules that is supposed to provide some measure of fairness in the dealings we have with one another. Officers of the Court have a responsibility to uphold that concept of law; those that attempt to make a mockery of the law by participating in a sham like this one should never again be trusted in any measure. Let them earn a living as day laborers for the rest of their miserable years.

</rant>

Don't butter your toast just yet... (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051234)

SCO isn't toast yet, quite. There are still ninety-some-odd items of evidence that IBM are trying to get dismissed as they don't implicate IBM in any wrongdoing, and seven-or-so expert testimonies IBM are trying to get trimmed as they include new evidence past the closing of discovery.

-Loyal

What Wells said in June... (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051246)

...was basically that SCO has had 3+ years to show any evidence that they could come up with that IBM violated SCO's copyrights or patents by contributing code the Linux kernel. In that time, they haven't shown one single of code. They've whined and complained that IBM was being unfair and not giving them what they asked for, when in fact IBM did put up everything that was asked for. As Wells put it: "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"

So Magistrate Wells threw out half the case. Then SCO whined to Kimball, the judge of record in the case saying "Magistrate Wells is being unfair and thew out most of our case! Wha!" This is Kimball coming back saying, "Sorry, Wells was right. You don't have a leg to stand on."

After the Novell case, which seeks to prove, among other things, the disposition of the UNIX System V copyrights (which Novell claims to still own), there isn't likely to be hardly anything left of SCO v. IBM. Kimball was right to put Novell first the case might throw out SCO's intellectual property claims in regard to Unix altogether.

In the end, I fully expect IBM to eat SCO for lunch on the counterclaims, even after they dropped most of them except for the Lanham Act violations.

Re:What Wells said in June... (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051548)

In the end, I fully expect IBM to eat SCO for lunch on the counterclaims,

Well then, I hope IBM is on a diet. Maybe the chef will be extra generous with the parsley garnish.

Re:What Wells said in June... (2, Funny)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051738)

No matter how you dress it up, it's still a turd sandwich. No amount of garnish will help with that.

Re:What Wells said in June... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052944)

In that time, they haven't shown one single of code.

Not quite correct. They have shown some code; however they haven't given enough information to properly identify the code. What IBM asked for was operating system, file, line, and version. In all cases, SCO gave only three or two of the four things required despite being ordered three times and then warned by IBM that their disclosure was insufficient.

Re:What Wells said in June... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053838)

Not quite correct. They have shown some code;

They showed some code in Dynix, correct? Which they don't own, correct?

Re:What Wells said in June... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17054128)

I'm not sure what they gave. Judge Wells noted that SCO claimed "450,000 lines of source code and hundreds of confidential methods and concepts." I think that some of it might have been Dynix. It may have been that they listed Dynix code that infringed but without any reference as how it infringed with SysV or Linux.

Re:What Wells said in June... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053240)

As Wells put it: "In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"

Well it's almost correct. I'm just waiting for the "In the view of the [SEC] it is almost like SCO sought to hide [that it has no] case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining a [stock price] advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence . . . on the table'"

More like Crispy Critters ... (3, Informative)

richg74 (650636) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051248)

"What does it mean? It means SCO is toast."

The District Judge has now affirmed the order originally given by the Magistrate Judge, which tossed out most of SCO's claims, basically for a more or less complete lack of evidence. However, IBM's counter-claims, including tortious interference, violation of NY business law, and violation of the Lanham Act are still alive and well. As PJ at Groklaw points out, [groklaw.net] IBM seems determined to present these claims in front of a jury. If they do, the likely outcome is a large, smoking crater in Lindon, Utah. As PJ puts it: "In short, IBM intends to skin SCO alive at trial."

From the judge's order:
the court finds that, even under a de novo standard of review, the Magistrate Judge's June 28, 2006 Order is correct.

The judge reviewed the material under appeal de novo, to be extra careful, even though he was not required to do so. This is consistent with a feeling I've had for some time: he's decided SCO's case is a complete crock, and is working on creating a trial record that will be bullet-proof on appeal.

Re:More like Crispy Critters ... (3, Informative)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053396)

Actually Magistrate Wells threw out none of SCO's claims. Every claim they made remains in the case, which is why her motion is non-dispositive. What she did was throw out the evidence SCO was trying to introduce to support their claims, on the grounds that they were ordered to produce it by a certain deadline, they had it in hand and could have easily produced it (according to their own statements), and they willfully refused to produce it. Having so failed to produce it in a timely manner, they're not allowed to use it now that it's too late for IBM to respond to it without prejudice. This leaves their claims with nothing to support them, which means they'll fall to a summary judgement motion by IBM (which is already in progress).

Re:More like Crispy Critters ... (1)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053412)

I'm admittedly a little fuzzy on the use of Trial de novo.

Does this mean the judge made the case as if 'new' so that SCO would be allowed to present any new evidence it wanted? If so does this mean the judge then used this to prove they didn't have any evidence in the first place and thus would have a hard time appealing?

Yay (1)

Faylone (880739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051270)

Now, what's the sound of a group of penguins cheering?

Re:Yay (1)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051522)

Didn't you know that penguins sing? (its because they all have a heart song - except those that tap dance)

Any those of you who are not parents to young children can be thankful they have no idea what this comment means!

SJVN says it's over, too (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051272)

Here's [linux-watch.com] his opinion on the whole sordid mess, but in brief, he says that SCO no longer matters, and that he probably won't report further on it until final resolution.

I'm happy to see things finally start to kill off SCO's FUD machine. This, friends, is the beginning of the end for IBM v SCO.

Novell v SCO - same as MSFT v MSFT ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051280)



Novell v SCO - same as MSFT v MSFT ? Doesn't Microsoft essentially back both these lamos?

Novell going first not a good thing (4, Insightful)

Software (179033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051296)

Now that Novell is all kissy-kissy with Microsoft, having Novell go first in the lawsuit vs. SCO might not be so good. As we all know, Microsoft basically funded SCO's Unix IP fishing expedition with a $50 million "licensing" deal. I'd much rather have IBM be the one to grind SCO to a pulp. Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill.

Reminds me of Dungeons And Denizens (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051512)

Hopefully, Novell will not pull any punches, and IBM can continue the beating after Novell's had their fill.


Somehow I'm reminded of this comic strip: http://www.dungeond.com/d/20061120.html [dungeond.com]
With the gnolls being SCO and the heavily armoured guards being IBM's lawyers.

Re:Novell going first not a good thing (4, Interesting)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051662)

As a side note, I _hope_ that when SCO is buried and Novell and IBM walk away from this with a satisfied grin on their faces (ala Captain Morgan), IBM should make a bid to buy Novell then GPL the Unix Sys V source code.

It's the whipped cream topping on the Pumpkin Pie.

Re:Novell going first not a good thing (1)

whosit (176149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053930)

Caldera (before they became SCO) was trying to do exactly that. Unfortunately there is a ton of other companies IP in UNIX SRV so they never were able to do it. Pretty much the root cause of all of this...

Re:Novell going first not a good thing (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052036)

The deal between MS and Novell won't change the case; Let's say Novell wins. They wont even be tempted to go after IBM because SCO was able to show no evidence, even if they owned the copyright. And if Novell wins it will be a terminal blow to SCO; IBM will just put a bullet in SCO's brain to finish the deal.

Re:Novell going first not a good thing (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17053272)

Although the case is losing it's entertainment value as freak show, with Microsoft effectively paying for the lawyers on both sides it manages to become even weirder.

I wouldn't worry though, with the Novell deal it's to Microsoft's advantage to have as many IP rights in Novell's pocket as is possible. Interesting timing on that deal, no?

KFG

Did he also say (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051338)

Clouds above bench part...

"Stop groveling! I hate it when people grovel!"

Piss-off-the-Judge strategy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051340)

Perhaps they are trying to piss off the judge, like Microsoft did with Judge Jackson?

That eventually resulted in Jackson more or less publically stating that the MS team were a bunch of bozos. And so they got a higher court to rule him as being biased against them, and his judgement that MS should be split into an OS division and a software division got overturned.

It's either that, or they're hoping to draw out this trial so long that the judge dies of old age.

at last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051456)

What is amazing is the time it took to get there. German court was much faster [slashdot.org] .

Groklaw's Being Just A Bit Immature (-1, Flamebait)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051506)

"And may I please point out that everything Groklaw told you about this case and about SCO and about what would happen eventually is now coming true? [takes a bow] As you can now discern, if you so desire, Groklaw was never biased, as SCO has repeatedly claimed. Groklaw was right. We had no inside track but, as a group, we had the technical and legal knowledge required to call this one accurately, even though at the beginning, we had to stand alone. Some have worried that there would never be justice from the court, as they watched the discovery process drag on and on. I told you it would all work out in the end, didn't I? Now it is, and doesn't it feel good to see some fairness at last?"

Wow! That's some mighty fine self-congratulations! "I told you so" of the highest quality.

Re:Groklaw's Being Just A Bit Immature (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17051766)

well, PJ and the Groklaw camp did take a lot of shit from SCO and crew while this was going on. some of it was down right insulting. i even saw some astroturfing here on /. to try to discredit Groklaw's knowledge and expertise on law and technology. what it all amounted to, essentially, was a bunch of ad hominem attacks and personal insults. i'd say, if anything, that Groklaw is being restrained in it's gloating.

no, i'm not going to post a link; you can do the searching yourself. in fact, i'll post this anonymously, just so people can't say i'm karma whoring.

Re:Groklaw's Being Just A Bit Immature (4, Informative)

richg74 (650636) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051786)

If you have followed this case on Groklaw since the early days, as I have, you'll remember that PJ has been the target of considerable mud-slinging from SCO: she was just a paid shill for IBM, that sort of thing. You may also remember that, early on, there were quite a few self-styled "analysts" (the apparently tireless, and certainly tiresome, Ms. Laura Didio comes to mind) who expressed their confidence in the validity of SCO's case. I'll give PJ a pass on the self-congratualation.

Just To Clarify... (1)

Petersko (564140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051872)

I'm sure many will point out (as two already have) that Groklaw's justified in wallowing in it for the moment.

In truth, I agree. I'd have been less restrained, actually. I pointed it out because it amuses me to see the equivalent of "HAH! SO THERE!" on a site filled with legal jargon.

Re:Just To Clarify... (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052226)

No amount of legal jargon can completely cover human nature. All a lawsuit is, after all, is a sophisticated version of the playground arguments to the teacher. Most cases boil down to pretty basic human desires, lawyers just find ways to translate those desires into legalese.

Re:Groklaw's Being Just A Bit Immature (2, Informative)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052244)

Last week, in More IBM Filings and a Nice Memento for Us to Share [groklaw.net] , PJ was also proud to note that the Letter to SCO [theinquirer.net] that Groklaw wrote back in 2003 was actually submitted as evidence by IBM now, to show that "SCO rebuffed requests by the open source community for evidence of the alleged infringement, which would have permitted a potential work-around."

And rightfully proud, of course. More power to PJ!

Last chance offer! (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051584)

This is your last chance to take advantage of SCO's special licensing offer of only $699 per computer. Better get those orders in before it's too late!

The system works! (3, Interesting)

straponego (521991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051682)

All you need in order to beat a frivolous lawsuit is unlimited time and money, a few competent judges, and a little luck :)

Seriously, this is great news and Groklaw, as usual, does a nice job of presenting it in human-readable form. One hopes that the impending THUD of SCO will act as a deterrent to shell corporations who might want to try the same tactics. And real corporations would have something to lose in countersuits, so... Hmm, I'm feeling awfully optimistic today. I'd better have that checked.

and what would this mean? (2, Interesting)

adaminnj (712407) | more than 7 years ago | (#17051770)

"Also included in this ruling is the news that the Novell vs. SCO trial will go first"

I wonder how the Novell-Microsoft deal will effect this case?

or do you think that MS has come to turms with Linux as long as they can control it with FUD and money.

Hmmm...now this looks familiar... (2, Interesting)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052068)

Prologue: Microsoft pumped money into SCO for whatever reason, SCO used Microsoft's support to prolong this debacle in the courts. Now Microsoft is pumping money into Novell. Novell certainly used some of that money in their defense against SCO.

Am I the only one who sees this as reminiscent the scene in Star Wars III where Anakin kills Dooku? Cast M$ as Palpatine, SCO as Dooku and Novell as Anakin.

M$: "Good. Now . . . kill him"

Novell: "I shouldn't do it. It's not our way. They're a LINUX distributor too."

M$ "Do it!"

(SCO's head flies off in appelate court)

"Always two there are - a master and an apprentice." Too bad, I really like SuSE.

Re:Hmmm...now this looks familiar... (4, Funny)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052222)

Am I the only one who sees this as reminiscent the scene in Star Wars III
You are the only one here who thinks Star Wars III is worth remembering at all.

Buy a license. (3, Funny)

faraway (174370) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052186)

Let's all email SCO and inquire about a license. "We heard you're going out of business and were wondering if you could spare us some licenses."

SCO stock on eBay (3, Funny)

MatrixCubed (583402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052428)

I wonder if this foreshadows the time where SCO stock portfolios are worth more on eBay than on NYSE?

Good and bad news (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17052660)

The good news is that SCO has been limited in its claims. The bad news is that the IBM-SCO trial was set for February and now will wait until after SCO-Novell which is Sept. 2007. The good news of that is that Novell most likely will win which makes most of SCO's claims useless if they don't even own the IP. The bad news is that the GPL may be fully tested in court if that happens. Of course, IBM would win their counterclaims which includes claims based on the GPL.

Confusing? Remember: Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line!

The worst that can happen now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17052806)

Is that Darl mysteriously 'get's it' and it be pinned on some well-known FOSS supporter.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...