×

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 Having a Hard Time In Court

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the buy-a-helmet dept.

The Courts 120

jamienk writes "The beginning of the end is in sight. SCO has been reprimanded for the second day in a row by a second judge in their campaign against Linux. Basically, Judge Wells ruled that SCO's vague claims of IP infringement will not be allowed to be heard in court, since it was all clearly a poor attempt at avoiding showing any evidence. Next, SCO will face compelling counterclaims against it by IBM." From the article: "At issue was whether SCO would be allowed to sneak in new allegations and evidence in its experts' reports that it failed to put on the table openly in its Final Disclosures, in effect, as IBM described it, reinventing its case at the eleventh hour. The answer today was no, it won't be allowed to do that. IBM had asked for this relief: 'Insofar as SCO's proposed expert reports exceed the Final Disclosures, they should be stricken.' More details will be arriving in a while, but assuming the early reports are accurate, we may assume that this is what the Judge has ordered." This is a follow-up to a story we discussed yesterday.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

120 comments

Er, dupe? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17068064)

Look down a few stories. Not even yesterday. Dupe-a-licious!

Re:Er, dupe? (1)

Jabrwock (985861) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068480)

I suppose technically it's an update, clarifying how SCO was trying to avoid showing evidence, through claiming IP infringement. The rest is dupe though.

Re:Er, dupe? (4, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068584)

No, no dupe. First story was about Judge Kimball affirming an order Judge Wells maid (the striking a lot of evidence) and this story is about a hearing that Judge Wells held today.

Re:Er, dupe? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069780)

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/01/05 51238 is the story that is being duped. BOTH stories are about Judge Wells. That story only mentions Kimball to say "A day after Judge Dale Kimball reaffirmed Judge Wells' order tossing most of SCO's case." Keep reading: "Judge Wells has stricken large portions of SCO's expert reports." Oh hey, that's what the current story is about!

It is a dupe.

Re:Er, dupe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17069940)

First story was about Judge Kimball affirming an order Judge Wells maid...


Now that was below the belt. Let's keep their maids out of this. Just because they are from fucking Utah and have 5 wives and 3 "maids" and 27 children doesn't mean that's any reason to make fun of them.

Re:Er, dupe? (3, Insightful)

psykocrime (61037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068770)

Not a dupe. There really have been two distinct SCO stories in the last 24 hours or so.

Re:Er, dupe? (1)

obdulio (410122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070912)

There were 3 stories, one about Judge Kimballs ruling yesterday and 2 stories today about judge Wells. Their are clearly duplicated.

Dupe! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17068088)

Six hours later and still on the frontpage. Zonk, that's got to be record time!

Re:Dupe! (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068212)

I don't think so. I think he duped a story that was put up by a different editor about 2 hours after it was posted about 6 months ago so, not a record.

Three's the charm! (-1, Troll)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068100)

This is a great story! Let's see it posted three times to slashdot! Everybody submit the story from a different angle!

Re:Three's the charm! (1)

vslashg (209560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068184)

This is a great story! Let's see it posted three times to slashdot! Everybody submit the story from a different angle!
Resubmit it, but with "Wii" in the title. Zonk will repost it for sure.

Re:Three's the charm! (4, Informative)

mean pun (717227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068438)

This is a great story! Let's see it posted three times to slashdot! Everybody submit the story from a different angle!
By a strange coincidence, you're the third one to say this, and your angle is indeed different from the other ones. Unfortunately, all of you have overlooked the juicy bit of this news item, buried deeply in the /. text:
SCO has been reprimanded for the second day in a row by a second judge in their campaign against Linux.
If one SCO disaster is newsworthy, two disasters in as many days surely is also newsworthy.

Re:Three's the charm! (0)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069010)

You're right. One sentence was worth an whole new post instead of an update to the one still on the front page.

Re:Three's the charm! (1)

yo_tuco (795102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070006)

"One sentence was worth an whole new post instead of an update to the one still on the front page."

Since, allegedly, /.ers don't RTFA, a one-sentence change in the summary is a significant change in information and volume that /.ers do read.

Re:Three's the charm! (2, Interesting)

theonetruekeebler (60888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070574)

There will probably be a lot more than just one sentence handed out, when all this is over. Somebody might want to seize Darl's passport, because the SEC will be wanting a Very Meaningful Chat with him about the Lanham Act [wikipedia.org] , not to mention running a pump-and-dump scheme from his own board room.

Re:Three's the charm! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17069042)

I guess slashdotters only read the title nowaday, not even the summary.

Re:Three's the charm! (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 7 years ago | (#17073050)

If one SCO disaster is newsworthy, two disasters in as many days surely is also newsworthy.

Except that this article is the THIRD SCO article in two days. The event yesterday was separate; it had one article. However, this current quashing was already discussed in an article posted 6 hours before this one [slashdot.org] .

And to top it off, your underinformed post gets +5 Informative while my 100% correct one got marked Overrated.

the ruling should have been . . . (5, Funny)

queequeg1 (180099) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068106)

To paraphrase the ruling "Insofar as this proposed item exceeds anyone's tolerance for blatant dupes , it should be stricken."

Re:the ruling should have been . . . (1, Insightful)

frankie (91710) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070044)

To all those who are scoffing at (and downmodding) our cries of "Dupe!", please PAY ATTENTION:

  1. No, this is not a dupe of the story posted yesterday (and linked in the blurb).
  2. Yes, this is a dupe of the story posted 6 hours ago [slashdot.org] .

Re:the ruling should have been . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17072776)

Overrated mod? What a fucking cowardly weasel you are.

Re:the ruling should have been . . . (1)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070784)

Clever. Save it for an actual dupe (you won't have to wait long). SCO has had two horrible defeats in two days over two different issues by two different judges.

As Pam Jones of Groklaw said, SCO is toast.

Yup. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17068112)

One of the greatest dupe farts of all time.

So, when do we finally get to watch... (1)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068130)

... IBM put a stake through blood-sucking SCO's heart? Will there be appeals? How long can this go on?

Re:So, when do we finally get to watch... (4, Funny)

Basehart (633304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068914)

I hope SCO doen't come after me next! I tried to install Linux on a pile of dog shit a few weeks ago and am now wondering if I didn't somehow infringed on SCO's intellectual property.

Re:So, when do we finally get to watch... (1)

Dr Caleb (121505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071122)

"I tried to install Linux on a pile of dog shit a few weeks ago and am now wondering if I didn't somehow infringed on SCO's intellectual property."

I don't think Darl McBrideofFrankenstein is linux compatible.

Re:So, when do we finally get to watch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17072528)

If Novel wins, it is "sudden death" for SCO. If memory serves right, SCO will owe Novel something like $60M and it will get back about 5% or so as administration fee from Novel. SCO doesn't have that much cash around to pay Novel.

If that happens, SCO will most likely declare bankruptcy and we may not see the IBM case go to trial. May be Novel/IBM can pick up (buy) SCO then, and 'declare all that IP in the public domain' without identifying it (same as SCO has done for years, and MS is doing now with the Novel patent agreement). Won't that be an interesting end to the episode?

Sure glad (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068202)

Sure glad I don't have any SCO stock.

The end is in sight and will probably mean the dissolution of SCO assets as the company folds up and dies, since this was a last gasp ploy to hit a litigation jackpot of billions of $ from IBM, et al.

Sad to see, as SCO was once a respectable company in Santa Cruz, CA.

Re:Sure glad (4, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068350)

Sad to see, as SCO was once a respectable company in Santa Cruz, CA.


The current SCO is a different company than the the old SCO (Santa Cruz Organization) to which you refer.

http://www.answers.com/topic/tarantella-inc-1 [answers.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarantella%2C_Inc [wikipedia.org] .

The new SCO is pure evil and I would not be surprised to learn that Darl McBride is a pedophile and baby eater, and that he kicks newborn puppies for fun.

Re:Sure glad (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17069472)

I was a Caldera employee up until the acquisition of SCO. After the acquisition, SCO was used to remove most of the redundant departments at Caldera. I jumped ship when I realized SCO was taken over. Along with Ransom Love and many of my former coworkers, we saw what was happening. SCO was struggling with declining revenue and it led to an easy acquisition by Caldera. Once that happened, the old Caldera was mostly gutted and replaced by the newly acquired SCO employees. The few Caldera employees left were of the quality that you see now. With the declining revenue of the new Unix kernel and the slow decline in popularity of OpenLinux (eDesktop, eServer, etc.), it appears that those left chose to try litigation as a business model.

Posted A/C for the obvious reason...

Re:Sure glad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17071502)

OMGZOERS, Im gonna make CowboyNeal give me ur ip!!1

Hugz,

Darl

It was still bad (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17069476)

While the old SCO certainly wasn't as bad as the current one, they were still bad. The Michels boys were just as crooked as they could be. For years, they didn't issue stock, until they had products and cash coming in. Instead, they just issued promises that they'd "take care of you". That they did, by issuing significantly less stock to the original employees than is normal for a startup. But they didn't care. Once they had product, they didn't need the orginal employees as much, and so they gave the original crew the shaft.

This is also the second time that SCO has worked with Microsoft to shut down *NIX competition. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microport#Application s [wikipedia.org]

Fortunately they failed, as Microport later helped the FSF put gcc on the 386 by giving them a free copy of UNIX.

Then there was the sexual harassment which went one (resulting in two lawsuits, as reported in the Press), and the guy they drove out of business who was dumb enough to give them an exclusive - after which they deliberately refrained from selling the software or letting him out of their contract. And the CEO saying that they'd steal as much as they wanted from Linux. And more and more.

The point is that crooked business practices has been the norm for SCO throughout its history, with few exceptions.

It's far more honest to say that the original SCO was rotten too; just not as rotten as the current version.

Re:Sure glad (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#17074448)

The current SCO is a different company than the the old SCO (Santa Cruz Organization) to which you refer.

This I knew. They used to host free tech talks on a regular basis in their offices over near Harvey West Park in Santa Cruz. It was there I learned about Java Server Pages from Jason Hunter, who wrote the first book O'Reilly published on the subject (called the Tea Kettle cover.)

I knew a few people who worked there and at least one who had aspirations to go there just before things started to go sour, that whole Tarantella and Caldera's involvement.

Who has a clear timeline? (1)

gumpish (682245) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068206)

What I think is sorely missing is a page where interested persons can go to see what the next deadline in the case is and what various known future deadlines are.

I'm constantly reading about assorted developments, but I can't find any place (groklaw included) that provides a clear up-to-date summary of "Where SCO vs. IBM is RIGHT NOW". I've seen the SCO Scorecard, but it's not lucid enough to be grokked in a reasonably short amount of time.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I (like many I imagine) am tired of this debacle dragging on indefinitely and would like to know WHEN we can expect hard deadlines to elapse and this mess either get to a trial or get thrown out.

Re:Who has a clear timeline? (3, Informative)

venicebeach (702856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068334)

Part of this week's ruling was that the IBM-SCO case will not be heard until Novell vs SCO is taken care of. So the trial date for IBM/SCO has not been set yet:
It appears that judicial economy and the interests of all the parties will be best served by trying the Novell case-set to begin on September 17, 2007-prior to the instant action. 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. The pending dispositive motions will be heard on the following dates: Thursday, March 1, 2007 (3:00pm-5:00pm); Monday, March 5, 2007 (2:30pm-5:00pm); and Wednesday, March 7, 2007 (2:30pm-5:00pm). The parties are directed to submit a proposal by no later than January 12, 2007, setting forth the most efficient sequence for hearing the motions, with both parties having equal time on each motion.

Re:Who has a clear timeline? (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071888)

=== What I think is sorely missing is a page where interested persons can go to see what the next deadline in the case is and what various known future deadlines are. ===
Here is the page you ask for [scofacts.org] , although Al has not yet updated it with the schedule changes implicit in the last two rulings.

Lot of other good stuff on his site as well.

sPh

You got some SCO on your face (4, Funny)

straponego (521991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068290)

Too bad IBM can't realistically go after SCO's backers (MS, Sun)... but as long as SCO is vaporized and the scum who ran the scam have all their assets seized, I'll be content. Prison time would be appropriate given the damage they did and attempted to do to honest programmers and the economy in general, but... probably best to just end the whole farce and move on.

What do you mean, vindictive?

Re:You got some SCO on your face (1)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069292)

Do you know of any reason why IBM can't go for SCO's backers?

I know there's been lots of speculation about IBM being able to pierce the corporate
veil, and some of that speculation includes IBM being able to take this fight to
SCO's backers.

Until we know what IBM knows, it's really hard to make a strong argument either way.

Re:You got some SCO on your face (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071132)

Do you know of any reason why IBM can't go for SCO's backers?

They can try, but it's not easy. [wikipedia.org]

-jcr

Decisions, Decisions (1, Funny)

Non-CleverNickName (1027234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068312)

In 1 year, I wonder what people would rather choose to own:

100 shares of SCO stock or 100 nude photos of Janet Reno...


Even after you've made your decision, what the hell do you do with 100 nude photos of Janet Reno??

So much for connecting to Slashdot at Lunchtime (4, Funny)

StressGuy (472374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068460)

...thanks...I'm going to need to stop and buy more beer on the way home tonight to wash that visual out of my head.

Re:So much for connecting to Slashdot at Lunchtime (2, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069548)

Ick, I know. I think I just went permanently limp from the thought of owning 100 shares of SCO stock.

Re:Decisions, Decisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17068554)

Well, at least one of the two might be useful for blackmail. I'm still trying to determine which one it is though.

Re:Decisions, Decisions (1)

weeboo0104 (644849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070252)

I would rather have the photos or Janet Reno. There will always be a certain element of society that go for that sort of thing.
I don't think there is anybody out there who would want to buy SCO stock at this point.

Complain about dupes all you want, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17068324)

For people like me who have just woken up from a coma in the last few minutes, this regurgitated news is quite handy.

OT: Cheap Laugh (5, Funny)

Nighttime (231023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17068408)

As SCO's share price seems to be plummeting a bit today, I decided to download a stock ticker for my desktop to watch the price fall in all its glory. The one I went for, CoolTick, is limited to two symbols in the trial version. Fine by me, I only want to watch SCOX. I now have scrolling across the top of my screen "SCOX v 1.25 -0.75 N/A Purchase License".

Well, it made me chuckle anyway.

Re:OT: Cheap Laugh (1)

darkonc (47285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17073502)

Yeah, the people who hoped that SCO would pull off a last-inning upset seem to have finally realized that the light at the end of the tunnel is a train. SCO's stock has dropped almost precisely 50% in tha last two days.

If I was one of the fools who still had some SCO stock left to sell, I'd probably wait a week or so for the current selling frenzy to end, and let the SCO stock painters to get back in action. I'd hope they'd be able to get the stock back up near the $2.00 range again, then I'd sell what I had left.

Not being stupid enough to hold SCO stock, however, I'm just waiting for it to s(t)ink below $0.50 for long enough to get delisted.

Re:OT: Cheap Laugh (1)

markrages (310959) | more than 7 years ago | (#17074940)

Let the SCO stock painters to get back in action
Vista's been released. Why would they continue painting?

Wrong! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17068984)

"Basically, Judge Wells ruled that SCO's vague claims of IP infringement will not be allowed to be heard in court".

This is completely wrong!

The CLAIMS will be heard in court. However, most of the EVIDENCE (or lack of) to back those claims has been ruled inadmissable because SCO did not comply with the court's order regarding specificity (show us the code!).

Re:Wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17071326)

All of SCO's claims still stand.

What Judges Wells and Kimball ruled on this week concerned the admissability of certain evidence to support those claims.

The issue of claims will be addressed in hearings in March before Judge Kimball, when IBM will ask for summary judgement to reduce the scope of (i.e., throw out, as a matter of law) the claims themselves.

Unfortunate (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069036)

It's unfortunate that it has taken SCO so long to go down over this one. Would have been happy to see this over years ago. Thank God IBM has deep pockets, and the desire to see this through. With luck, by the time they're done even if they're given SCO as the prize, it will essentially be worthless, which is also unfortunate, but only for IBM, who deserves a better reward for fighting the good fight this time.

Reward (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071964)

IBM [] deserves a better reward [than the corpse of SCO] for fighting the good fight this time.

IBM certainly deserves a reward, big time. (Good work, guys!)

But their reward for fighting this fight (presuming they win it as it looks now) would be more than the corpse of SCO.

Much of their business model these days is based on Linux (and other Open Source code) being unencumbered by claims such as SCO's. A win against SCO will end risk for Linux from claims based on IP from the Unix codebase. But it will also serve as a precedent-setter for all Open Source authors and users, provide a lesson on how to defend against such claims, drive a spike into future IP FUD attacks on OSS, and (perhaps most effectively) provide a TERRIBLE object lesson for all who would seek to make such claims in the future.

IBM (and all of Open Source) will have the corpse of SCO to haul out an rattle whenever someone starts making noises about IP.

Now that won't STOP such claims - especially well funded ones. (I expect the next shoe to fall might be Microsoft directly bringing up patent infringement claims.) But a win here will go a long way toward consolidating the legal status of OSS.

Broken Justice System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17069332)

While its great that this farce is finally nearing its end, I really can't believe it took so long. This thing has been dragging out for years, with SCO just never showing any concrete evidence. To me, that just shows how broken the whole process is.

Re:Broken Justice System (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070960)

I must wonder why they picked IBM.

They must have known they would have no evidence and no case. If what they wanted was money, they should have gone with someone who would be unable to fight a long war and would entered an agreement before the lack of evidence became evident.

In their place I would have picked SGI, who contributed a lot to the Linux kernel.

SCOX down 40% today (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069420)

SCO's stock went into a screaming dive [yahoo.com] today. It's down 40% today on heavy trading, about 20x the normal volume. The mainstream business press has picked up the story, and, this time, there's no ambiguity.

  • "SCO Losing Case Over Linux Code" - Associated Press [yahoo.com] "Kimball gave Wells' reasoning his full support Thursday, finding that SCO had deliberately failed to show any proof of its claims."
  • "SCO Gets TKO'ed" - Forbes [forbes.com] "The judges seem to be growing frustrated with SCO. For years, the company has gone around making outlandish claims--including many to Forbes--about IBM stealing huge amounts of code from Unix. Yet SCO has never shown any evidence to back up its claims."
  • "Investors Abandon SCO" [forbes.com] "Investors fled SCO Group's stock on Friday, voting with their feet after a federal judge gutted its lawsuit against IBM. "

Forbes seems to have really had it with SCO. Much of SCO's early FUD appeared in Forbes articles, which now makes Forbes look bad.

Re:SCOX down 40% today (3, Informative)

Soko (17987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069886)

Wonder if Rob Enderle has, too.

From http://www.technewsworld.com/story/opinion/33529.h tml [technewsworld.com] :

SCO has just over US$60 million in resources to sustain it while it fights IBM (NYSE: IBM) Latest News about IBM in what clearly is one of the most volatile wars in the history of technology. What has been very interesting is that SCO publicly has been given almost no chance of winning, while privately the company has convinced several folks, including me, that it has a strong chance.

Enjoy your crow dinner, Rob. For desert is Humble Pie.

Soko

Sorry, he won't admit a mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17070612)

What has been very interesting is that SCO publicly has been given almost no chance of winning, while privately the company has convinced several folks, including me, that it has a strong chance.

See he is shifting blame already. If everybody had been oh so nice in public then we'd be convinced too.

Re:SCOX down 40% today (4, Interesting)

jimfrost (58153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17073226)

Back when Enderle was writing a lot of pro-SCO articles I corresponded with him a few times on it. He was convinced that SCO would win largely because they could put themselves in front of a jury as the little guy being beaten up by the big guy.

I completely disagreed; at the time, it seemed clear to me that SCO's entire case rested on an interpretation of the contract that amounted to SCO owning all the code that IBM wrote independently. I don't think juries generally like the idea of someone using vague contractual language to grab others' work, especially seeing as SCO didn't even do the original work.

I also argued that it was unlikely SCO had anything to show, given that they'd already been reprimanded for missing discovery deadlines; now I am not a lawyer but my impression is that ignoring the judge's orders repeatedly is not good for your case. And indeed, that seems to be what has caught them out. Enderle told me he'd been privy to some of the stuff they were going to show the court, but my guess is that he didn't understand what they were showing him well enough to realize they were blowing smoke.

I am convinced that SCO figured IBM would just pay them to go away, everyone would make a quick buck, and that would be that; it would probably have been cheaper than this protracted court battle. But IBM thinks longer term. Having put up this kind of fight, do you think anyone else will ever sue them over Linux IP? This fight will make Linux largely lawsuit-proof.

It will be interesting to see what Enderle says about this decision, if anything. SCO clearly hoodwinked him. But as wrong as he was, he wasn't alone.

Compare Lyons from 2003 and 2006 (4, Informative)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070434)

"SCO Gets TKO'ed" [forbes.com] - Forbes "The judges seem to be growing frustrated with SCO. For years, the company has gone around making outlandish claims--including many to Forbes--about IBM stealing huge amounts of code from Unix. Yet SCO has never shown any evidence to back up its claims."

Compare that article to this one from when the whole SCO fiasco was getting started [forbes.com] . Same author, you'll note - very different attitude. I love the hilarity of juxtaposing the titles of the two articles. Back then Lyons was calling Linux advocates and users "crunchies" - now he just calls them "fans" and says things like "companies... have built booming businesses around Linux."

Not that he'll get called on the hypocrisy or anything.

What makes you think he's being hypocritical? (2, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17072906)

Not that he'll get called on the hypocrisy or anything.

What makes you think he's being hypocritical?

The previous article was written over three years ago. At the time WE may have known (or suspected) that SCO was talking through its hat, but The Suits, and the reporters that served them, had little such knowlege.

SCO talked a good line, while Open Source was a newcomer to business, of questionable utility, promoted by people who looked like "a bunch of socialist hippies" who didn't respect "intellectual property" and the related legal framework. Sure the OSS people SAID there was no proprietary Unix IP in Linux - deliberately or accidentally. But SCO (then repuatble) said otherwise.

Now we've had the SCO v. IBM trial (where it's clear that the issues are VERY important for business). That has given three plus years of education (so far) to those who are following it. (This is the JOB of news article authors such as Lions, who write these pieces to convey such information to executives, who need to get it RIGHT for their own multi-billion-dollar decision-making.) And so far SCO has shown itself to be blowing smoke, while IBM has shown Linux to be on solid IP ground.

So of COURSE the article NOW will be much different from the article THEN.

It would have been hypocracy if Lions had written the two articles back-to-back, with the same knowlege and mindset while writing both. But the Lions of today is a more educated man on this issue than the Lions of three plus years ago. So the contrast in the articles reflects his intelligence, integrity, and honesty - not hypocracy.

Re:What makes you think he's being hypocritical? (3, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17073234)

SCO talked a good line, while Open Source was a newcomer to business, of questionable utility, promoted by people who looked like "a bunch of socialist hippies" who didn't respect "intellectual property" and the related legal framework.

Except that now Lyons specifically states that SCO never produced any evidence. And even then the "noisy fanatics" (his words) were producing evidence that SCO was flat wrong.

Now he just sort of mumbles, "Gee, SCO was just flapping gums" without actually acknowledging that he was a prominent FUD disseminator himself, and they didn't - even then - back up their claims, to him or anyone else. I'd think at least a small apology would be in order.

Re:SCOX down 40% today (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070568)

SCO's stock went into a screaming dive today. It's down 40% today on heavy trading
I wouldn't have thought there would be enough value left in SCO for it to lose 40%... Is what's left over still measurable with current instrumentation or are we talking quantum here ?

Yes, this really is a dupe. (1)

YomikoReadman (678084) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069628)

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/01/05 51238 [slashdot.org]

Posted today, around 4 hours or so ago. Yes, it's a dupe. Yes, there was another story regarding Judge Kimball's de novo review of Magistrate Judge Wells' earlier decision, which was upheld in its' entirety.

This story, as well as the one that link will take you to, are in regards to SCO getting put in their place, once again, with regards to IBM's motion for PSJ regarding the claims left following the Motion to Compel.

Oh, and IANAL, just one of many who's followed this case over the last 3 years on Groklaw. Thanks PJ!

The Wheels of Justice (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069856)

Grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

I am willing to wait. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17072962)

The Wheels of Justice ... Grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.

Well I, for one, am willing to wait a bit if it is because they are taking that time to be sure they get it RIGHT. B-)

What makes me even more happy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17069864)

Is seeing this [google.com] after such good news. :D

One cloud on this silver lining (3, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17069970)

I just hope hope hope that the people involved in this legal scam of SCOs didn't dump their stock today.

Many posters recently pointed out that they thought this was a stock pumping scam designed to get the stock up on the possibility of getting a large settlement from IBM. Now that the chances of that happening are slimmer and slimmer, what would you bet that before these announcements, important execs at SCO dumped their stock?

I hope not. They should burn like the Enron execs should have burned.

Re:One cloud on this silver lining (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17070664)

I'm sure they dumped their stock 2 days ago, before the first hearing.

Re:One cloud on this silver lining (2, Informative)

wrook (134116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17073422)

They don't need to dump their stock at this point in time. They never paid for it in the first place, so there isn't any loss.

Remember that the principles involved are mostly trading "stock options". They are granted the right to buy stock at a certain price, and can then sell it for whatever the market will bear. They don't, however, *have* to pay for it at all if the stock isn't "in the money" (i.e., selling for more than the option strike price).

No, the time to dump the stock was at 14 or 15 dollars (and there was *plenty* of dumping going on). At $2, it's hang on until the inevitable crash.

Scox down 50% in two days (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070240)

Today is the biggest one-day drop since the scam started.

Scox's market cap still 4X as high as when darl started.

So can someone answer something for me? (1)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17070650)

As I read it, the judge has said that SCO can't slip new evidence in because the period to submit evidence to the court has passed, so anything they find now is not admissable for this trial.

Does this new material give them grounds for appeal or even retrial based on new material? I assume that it'll be as nonexistent new material as all their nonexistent old material was, but how does the court system deal with this? Is there a way the judge can say that they've shown bad faith and as such it can be assumed that anything new they come up with will be just as vapory, and pre-emptively bar it?

Re:So can someone answer something for me? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17071666)

There is NO "new material".

What SCO tried to sneak in after the close of the discovery phase was "expert" witness reports that broadened the scope of the original claims, to which IBM objected and Judge Kimball ruled on (in IBM's favor) yesterday.

What Judge Kimball correctly recognized was that trying to nail down SCO's claims was like trying to hit a moving target. The evidence that Judge Wells disallowed was ingeneously called "claims" by SCO in order to get past the fact (ie., evidence) discovery deadline.

If SCO has any new real evidence, they will have to ask for a new trial, not an appeal. Judge Kimball is working his hardest (de novo review) to make sure that there can be no appeal.

Even if SCO lasts that long.

Right after the MS-Novel deal .. coincidence ? (4, Interesting)

MrData (130916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071196)

Hmm lets see:

  • SCO gets bitch-slapped by two Judges for legal shenanigans.(As MS has been in virtually every leagal case it has been in, especially the Anti-Trust Case).
  • Just a couple of weeks earlier, MS and Novell join up to make a business deal that is so bad, even those involved with the deal can't explain it from a legal or business standpoint (which would be about the time that the SCO lawyers knew they were about to be taken to the wood shed ).


Now those not in the know are thinking "so what the hell does SCO have to do with MS or Novell ?" or even worse
"Those Slashdotters are just biased MS haters".

And the answer to these thoughts my young padawan learner (or MBA) are the following facts:

  • Microsoft is an investor in Baystar Capital Managment who has invested at least 50 mil in SCO before the lawsuit (google for it if you don't believe me). Even worse, Lawrence R. Goldfarb, one of the investors in Baystart said MS promised to indemnify Baystar's investment from losses to to the suit.
  • SCO's lawer is David Boies, the same lawyer who defended MS in its Anti-Trust suit against the US (and who was also repeatedly repremanded for legal malfeasance).


Which now leads us to the ultimate reason for why I believe these incidents are indeed related and not an accident ...
a motive !!

Both the SCO lawsuit and the MS-Novell agreement are designed to cast (at least to most tech-unsavy MBA types) a huge legal cloud over Linux specifically, and FOSS in general, of which Microsoft would be the only benefactor.

Case Closed

Re:Right after the MS-Novel deal .. coincidence ? (2, Insightful)

zCyl (14362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071590)

Just a couple of weeks earlier, MS and Novell join up to make a business deal that is so bad, even those involved with the deal can't explain it from a legal or business standpoint

They could explain it, it's just that neither side wants to. If you add up the money exchanged, the net result was that MS paid Novell some $300 million, which means MS was buying something. MS thought it was worth $300 million to create the speculation of legal trouble with Linux (as you said), but they don't benefit if they make a big deal out of the fact that they had to pay for Novell's cooperation, so they pretended to be buying protection from Novell. Novell thought $300 million was a nice chunk of cash, but they look sleezy if they admit that they were that easily bought out and cooperating with a FUD attack, so they took the money and then put a backspin on the story.

Re:Right after the MS-Novel deal .. coincidence ? (2, Informative)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071606)

Um. Boies prosecuted Microsoft in the anti-trust trial. He didn't get reprimanded in that trial, but there are other trials where he ran afoul of ethics and was called on it.

I stand corrected - Boise was the DOJ (1)

MrData (130916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071878)

Oops ...

Thanks for the fact check DannyO152. However, as you stated, my general point stands, both cases used dishonest legal practices. Furthermore, courtroom deception is a signature MS legal strategy.

And to make it explicit... (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17073062)

Both the SCO lawsuit and the MS-Novell agreement are designed to cast (at least to most tech-unsavy MBA types) a huge legal cloud over Linux specifically, and FOSS in general, of which Microsoft would be the only benefactor.

And to make the reason for the timing explicit: With the SCO suit unraveling, it's time to get the next shoe ready to drop.

Well, sure! The MS/Novell is the new front. (2, Interesting)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071442)

Now that MS has its shiny new cross-licensing patent contract with Novell, it now has a new opening in its war on Linux. They are probably pulling back all resources from the SCO front, getting ready to exploit this new angle for a few years.

I think Hattie said it best (Oblig. Futurama) (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17071552)

Hattie: Millionaires, nothing! The stock's only worth three kajiggers!

For those who do not speak legaleaze (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17072478)

From the article description:
"Insofar as SCO's proposed expert reports exceed the Final Disclosures, they should be stricken."


This essentially says that, since SCO tried to sneak some evidence at the end, without going through the proper legal process before hand, that this evidence should be removed and not considered by the court/judge/jury.

In an appeals process, these documents would not show up in a new case should SCO try to sue IBM in a higher court. SCO would have to try to re-enter that testemony.

Not the reports... (1)

Deathbane27 (884594) | more than 7 years ago | (#17074914)

'Insofar as SCO's proposed expert reports exceed the Final Disclosures, they should be stricken.'
Screw the reports, it's SCO's lawyers that should be stricken!
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...