Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Asks Court To Reconsider IBM's Dismissal

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-so-fast dept.

Caldera 139

VE3OGG writes "The SCO Group — the litigation firm currently in dispute with, among many, IBM, over supposed copyright infringing code in Unix — has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case out. SCO argued that the court's November decision was procedurally and substantially flawed and they say 'the rules of procedure do not support such a result under the circumstances of this case.' If allowed to reopen the case, the SCO Group argues, that new evidence would present itself through the deposition of several IBM programmers who had previously been interviewed."

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

Rats (5, Funny)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348134)

When I was in high school, a rat got into the house. My cousin, a neighbor and I had it pinned behind a piece of furniture. I was beating it from above with a broom handle, my neighbor was wacking it from underneath with a shovel and my cousin was hitting it from the side with something else. I thought the damn thing would never die. SCO reminds me of that rat.

Re:Rats (4, Funny)

numbski (515011) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348180)

I've learned something about trapping small animals.

My wife's cat (ie, she had the cat for the better part of 5 years before we got married) doesn't like me all that much. She would take the cat with us when we'd visit her parents' house, and in her old bedroom she had a queen-sized waterbed, where the headboard is suspended, leaving a little "tunnel" behind the bedframe and underneath the headboard.

The cat decided that when it was time to leave, it wasn't time to leave, and got under there, dead center out of reach. Now, in having raised cats prior, I taught them early on that I was the parent, and would pick them up by the scruff of the neck to let them know who was boss. This cat didn't know that game. I quickly grabbed her by the back of the neck and pulled her out....only for her to empty her bowel and bladder on me. There have been a few more times since I've had to do this, and the result is the same.

Point is, you may win in the end, but don't underestimate their ability to claw, scratch, kick, scream, and lastly, crap and pee all over you on the way out. :P

Re:Rats (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348702)

Next time try something else, like starting a vacuum and move it towards the bed, or if it doesn't have a problem with that, try squirting lemon or oranges towards it. Both assuming the cat has two ways out - if it's cornered doing stuff like that is just plain cruel.

Re:Rats (1)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348926)

I'm partial to the can of air trick when my cats try to hide under the bed...dual purpose use in my house here. Venting computer innards and flushing out a cat hidden somewhere I can't get to :-D

Re:Rats (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350688)

Technically speaking, if you are using pressure higher than 14.7 psig it's called purging, not venting.

Re:Rats (3, Funny)

cmacb (547347) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349570)

"Next time try something else, like starting a vacuum and move it towards the bed, or if it doesn't have a problem with that, try squirting lemon or oranges towards it. Both assuming the cat has two ways out - if it's cornered doing stuff like that is just plain cruel."

I doubt the vacuum cleaner trick will have any effect on the SCO lawyers. But I bet the judge might be desperate enough now to try that lemon in the eye thing. As to cruelty, the only ones who suffer in the end are users who have to pay for it one way or another in higher software costs, slower development cycles and wasted hours reading of the latest antics here and there and everywhere. I guess if cruelty to the lawyers WERE to become an issue the best thing would be to just shoot them.

It would be a start.

Re:Rats (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348878)

...and lastly, crap and pee all over you on the way out.

I wouldn't put it past Darl, but I suspect at this point the IBM lawyers are already protected by hip waders from the previous round of SCO BS.

Re:Rats (2, Funny)

fyoder (857358) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349104)

I quickly grabbed her by the back of the neck and pulled her out....only for her to empty her bowel and bladder on me. There have been a few more times since I've had to do this, and the result is the same.

Perhaps she's flashing back to early kittenhood when the mother licks up the kitten's waste.

Bon Appétit.

Re:Rats (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351700)


>The cat decided that when it was time to leave, it wasn't time to leave, and got under there, dead
>center out of reach.

There isn't a cat in the world that won't come out of hiding in order to get its mouth on a grisly piece of chicken or some tuna. Don't try to lure them with cat food or treats. Use a premium can of tuna meant for human consumption. This will never fail.

Re:Rats (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348684)

When I got dogs, I started getting rats (because the dogs wouldn't finish their dry kibbles).

The first rat I caught and released in the woods.

The second rat I killed in a very excited adrenaline rushed state with the dogs barking and the rat making incredible leaps to escape but ultimately we were in a closed room.

The next couple I quickly dispatched.

Finally, I just started putting out poison up out of reach of the dogs (who really wanted to eat it- my dog looked like a drug addict smelling rat poison).

They need to find some way to poison companies like SCO.

Asking Santa (4, Funny)

kitzilla (266382) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348140)

SCO is also asking Santa for a big red wagon and a puppy dog.

Re:Asking Santa (1)

lax-goalie (730970) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348170)

And a pony. Don't forget they want a pony, too.

If Santa brings them that, they'll own the Kentucky Derby, and will get to charge everyone a $499 "SCOSource Off Track Betting License".

Re:Asking Santa (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348194)

I couldn't help it. As I was scrolling up the screen I saw this thread of comments and saw slashdot inviting me to drink for it's firehouse, and though to myself that SCO is asking the Judge to drink from their firehose. :\ ....

Re:Asking Santa (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17348908)

I certainly wouldn't touch SCO's hose, never mind suck on it!

Re:Asking Santa (1)

DimGeo (694000) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349370)

Dammit, I misread you as "SCO is also asking Sparta"...

Re:Asking Santa (1)

rdean400 (322321) | more than 6 years ago | (#17350042)

...and for users that will pay their Linux license fee.

better late than never, (5, Informative)

fotang (606654) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348148)

as news for nerds that is one week old [groklaw.net] is still news...

Christmas story all over again.. (5, Funny)

iamsure (66666) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348168)

Kimball Quoted as saying "You'll shoot your case out kid!"

Summary is somewhat misleading. (4, Informative)

YouHaveSnail (202852) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348196)

According to both the article and Groklaw, it's not so much that Judge Kimball threw out SCO's case as it is that he affirmed Magistrate Judge Wells' order that threw out the claims that SCO couldn't or wouldn't substantiate. That does indeed include most of SCO's claims, but it's not true that the whole case was dismissed. SCO does have a few claims remaining, and IBM has multiple counterclaims. Nevertheless, SCO's goose is completely cooked, and we're now just waiting for IBM to finish them off.

Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (2, Informative)

fotang (606654) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348238)

...he affirmed Magistrate Judge Wells' order that threw out the claims that SCO couldn't or wouldn't substantiate.

This is quite confusing, but I understand that evidence, not claims, was thrown out. (?)

SCO's arguments are misleading (as usual) (2, Informative)

rsmith (90057) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348310)

They presented these items as evidence, but when the items were rightly challenged (basically, SCOG didn't supply file, version and line information that the judge ordered of code/methods they accused IBM of misusing), they changed their story (as they are accustomed to) and told the judge the items were claims.

If you take a good look at SCOG's filings, you can see that they cherry-pick those parts of the evidence and declarations that seem to support their claim, often quoting incomplete paragraphs of contracts and correspondence, and using parts of declarations out of context.

It's just plain lies, dressed up to enable SCOG to present them without sanction.

Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (4, Interesting)

Samari711 (521187) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348328)

That is correct. SCO's argument is that because that's the only evidence that they have to support those claims, the court is effectively throwing out the claims because they're throwing out the evidence. They ignore the fact that the "millions of lines of infringing" code never materialized, that the evidence they did disclose by the deadline was incomplete by the standards they were holding IBM to and the standards the court specified, and that they later tried to slip evidence in expert reports after fact discovery was closed so IBM couldn't do anything about that evidence.

Since /. is so slow on this, it should be noted that Judge Kimball rejected the request on a technicality that they filed as a request what should be a motion. Armchair analysis seems to indicate that the rejection might be his way of saying "You really don't want to do this" to SCO. This request basically calls the judge a liar or too incompetent to understand what a de novo review is. It's like SCO is trying to get found in contempt...

Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17348996)

It's like SCO is trying to get found in contempt...

Why does the concept of contempt still exist in today's court system? Can't judges rule on what is before them and put aside their emotions? (I guess I would be found in contempt for asking this question.)

Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349622)

You have no idea what a contempt citation is, do you? You really have no idea why they exist either, from your question.

Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17350022)

Apparently you don't either, or you would spend that entire useless post actually explaining it. He asked a legitimate question. You had no answer.

Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (4, Informative)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351744)


>Why does the concept of contempt still exist in today's court system?
>Can't judges rule on what is before them and put aside their emotions?

A contempt of court citation is not based on emotions. Contempt of court
has to do with a party's disobedience of a court order or certain well-defined types of misconduct that interfere with the legal process. Such rules carry the force of law, and a contempt of court citation is, depending on the specific case, a claim of civil damage or a criminal accusation made by the court against an individual.

Courts have an inherent power to punish persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings. The basis for this doctrine dates back as far as any of the founding principles of English Common Law.

Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (1)

mellonhead (137423) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348276)

Not only did he affirm Magistrate Judge Wells' order, he did a de novo review* of that decision as SCO requested and still ruled against them.

*de novo - Anew. afresh. Considering the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision previously had been rendered.

Re:Summary is mostly misleading. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17348386)

According to both the article and Groklaw, it's not so much that Judge Kimball threw out SCO's case as it is that he affirmed Magistrate Judge Wells' order that threw out the claims that SCO couldn't or wouldn't substantiate.

There is a still a problem with the terminology in the above. Judge Wells did not throw out claims (a legal term). She did not throw out evidence. She threw out allegations of IBM wrongdoing that were inadequately substantiated. Judge Kimball affirmed the ruling.

Contrary to SCO's latest filings and attempts to obfuscate the issue, all of the claims (Causes of action) are intact. They still have about a hundred allegations in play. Most of these allegations are still redacted from the general public but indications are that they are quite weak.

Re:Summary is mostly misleading. - Closed source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17348660)

Most of these allegations are still redacted from the general public

Why are parts of these proceedings redacted?

Re:Summary is mostly misleading. - Closed source. (2, Informative)

Arker (91948) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349292)

Any documents in a court case can be sealed from the general public on request of the parties, to avoid revealing trade secrets, embarrasing stuff, and so on. Then a redacted form of the document is normally made available, minus whatever they don't want you to see.

But what if the documents are everywhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17349898)

For example, Eli Lilly company has been trying to suppress documents related to their marketing of Zyprexa. But recently this message has been posted to various news and activism sites all over the world:

Eli Lilly's motion to suppress the evidence has been denied by an inter-galactic court of appeals. Justice will be served over HTTP.

As we speak, the slick marketing plans drawn up by the smartest boys in the drug dealing business are propagating across the Internet. Bittorrents have been internationally seeded; p2p networks like morpheus, kaaza, gnutella, and limewire are already trading vigorously; photos laced with the data have been posted to public photo sharing sites like flickr; movies containing slideshows are circulating on video sharing sites like YouTube; Usenet isn't obsolete yet, and yes, backups have been uploaded to freenet (freenetproject.org), the virtual data haven;

Information wants to be free. Look for a file named ZyprexaKills, or any of its l33t variants.

For those of you without easy access to these services we have temporarily posted these files in this convenient location:

http://files-upload.com/files/34036/ZyprexaKills.t ar.gz.html [files-upload.com]

Please be careful when obtaining them - we are up against some of the most greedy and powerful elites in the world.You may want to consider using the tor program (tor.eff.org) to preserve your anonymity. If its difficult for you to install this program, try www.torify.com, a web based surfing solution.

Send this message to as many friends and mailing lists that you can think of, especially the technically saavy and the media connected.

Please tag all netroots activity and distributed research relating to this campaign with the tag 'zyprexakills'.

This message is also available at: zyprexakills.wordpress.org zyprexakills.pbwiki.com

----------
Agent Fred


Once something is out there, all over the place, what can any company do about it?
And frankly, aren't all corporations in the US accountable to We The People.
There is such a thing as taking the concept of "trade secrets" way too far.

Re:Summary is somewhat misleading. (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348858)

You've got that right. The summary also says the case is "over supposed copyright infringing code in Unix."

NO CLAIMS WERE DISMISSED (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349270)

This is still misleading. NONE of Scalderas claims have been dismissed yet. NONE.

The magistrate judge threw out a number of their *evidentiary* entries, for failure to be specific. That was appealed, reviewed, and affirmed.

NO Claims Have Been Thrown Out! (1)

codermotor (4585) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349568)

Neither judge has thrown out anyone's claims. The ruling was only on evidence TSCOG submitted in support of some of their claims against IBM. In fact, IBM pointed out in their own briefings and motions supporting their (eventually granted) request for exclusion of the evidence that TSCOG was playing word games in trying to interchange claims and evidence. Obviously, the judges are smarter than TSCOG thinks.

Saying that claims have been thrown out is the lie that TSCOG has repeated enough times in their arguments that even the press and now Slashdot is treating it as fact. You don't have read some semi-obscure ten second summary to know what really happened (November 14th - weeks ago). Go to Groklaw [groklaw.net] and read that actual court papers yourself if you really care.

IBM's reply on Groklaw (4, Informative)

richg74 (650636) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348204)

Groklaw now has up a redacted version [groklaw.net] of IBM's reply memo to SCO's motion, which lays out numerous reasons why SCO is yet again full of what my grandfather called "condensed canal water".

Incorrect (2)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349380)

The article you linked to is a text version of IBM's reply to a previous SCO motion for partial summary judgment.

SCO's memorandum in support, which this belated Slashdot article is about, was filed on Dec 14th so we shouldn't expect IBM's reply to it until sometime next week.

New evidence? (5, Funny)

crossmr (957846) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348218)

If they had some evidence they probably should have used it the first time. What were they waiting for? Christmas?

Re:New evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17348286)

Darl: hee hee happy Christmas to me!

Bois: Ummmm Darl, they threw out 2/3 of your "evidence."

Darl: WHAT?

Bois: Dude, I told you it was shit. When we started this you told me you had evidence.

Darl: Yeah... if that asshole Blepp hadn't lost the suitcase....

Bois: Look, I don't give a fuck. they threw it out just like I told you they would. I tried, dude. We just will have to go with the 1/3 left

Darl: We don't have anything for those!

Bois: Oh shit.

Darl: Get some new evidence.

Bois: Dude, it's too late!

Darl: don't tell me that! What am I paying you for?

Bois: You haven't paid me for years. Legal fee cap, remember? WTF was I thinking?

Darl: STFU! Get some new evidence or my buddy Ballmer will Fucking Kill (TM) you!

Re:New evidence? (4, Informative)

rsmith (90057) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348332)

Their plan (as admitted in interviews) was to withhold "evidence" to the last moment to prevent IBM from preparing a good defence. This is unfair and not allowed of course, which is part of the reason some of their "evidence" was thrown out.

Re:New evidence? (1)

burnin1965 (535071) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348646)


Their plan (as admitted in interviews) was to withhold "evidence" to the last moment


In this interview were their lips moving? If they were then there is no reason to believe anything quoted from the interview.

Considering that one of the documents that was uncovered by IBM was an internal tSCOG e-mail to the CEO, Darl McBride, explaining how there was no evidence, its obvious they were not withholding evidence, they were withholding the truth.

Its a pretty safe bet to assume that their plan was not to withhold evidence but instead to extort settlement cash from IBM and others in exchange for not dragging their name through the courts and at the same time cashing in on lucrative FUD funds from linux competitors who were more than happy to have Darl McBride espousing the evils of open source and linux and at the same time providing bullet points to throw up during sales pitches and press releases.

Fortunately IBM has called tSCOG's bluff, the court has now concluded that not only is there no evidence but there never was any evidence, just a pack of lies. The unfortunate part is that although these scum bags have not profited the way they expected from IBM they have managed to pull in significant profits from Microsoft, Sun, and a few shady others behind the scenes.

There never was any evidence, just an insolent bluff.

Since you quoted "evidence" you are probably already aware of this. The tSCOG would like everyone to believe that IBM's involvement in open source and linux are malfescence enough to award tSCOG something for pointing this out. To bad for tSCOG that labeling the button down multi-billion dollar capitalistic market machine known as IBM as communist hippy dope smoking theif was futile. While Darl McBride wastes his time expounding the evils of open source and linux big business is profiting from the value of the new development model.

Re:New evidence? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349752)

Let's try Occam's razor:
They wait until the last minute, "miss" crucial evidence and then cry foul.

1. This is a good legal strategy
2. They have no evidence, and this a convienient coverup of why it never "appeared".

Re:New evidence? (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351762)


>Their plan (as admitted in interviews) was to withhold "evidence" to the last moment to prevent IBM
>from preparing a good defence.

If they admitted this, (cite?), they have no chance of entering the evidence anyway. 11th hour evidence may find its way into a trial for a criminal defense, but not in a civil case. When the window closes on discovery, that's the end -- no more evidence is introduced, no more experts or witnesses are named, nothing -- unless both parties move to do so and the judge concurs.

Re:New evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17348934)

One of their lawyers was out at Kinko's having the Chewbacca poster printed up.

Errr... (3, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348244)

Wait, didn't the court just tell them that no, you can not introduce new evidence into a case years after discovery is over? And then tossed their case out saying they have no leg to stand on? And now they say "if only we were allowed to add this new evidence, there would be a case" ???

Are they trying to pull a Microsoft here - annoying the judge until he says something stupid and they can get him replaced? Or are they simply dumb and hard of hearing?

Re:Errr... (3, Insightful)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348356)

New evidence can be entered after discovery is closed but it's got to be something that would cause a great injustice if not considered. The ruling SCO is protesting was Judge Wells ruling that SCO did NOT comply with Kimball's earlier ruling that the parts of Linux that infringe be defined in DETAIL, with filename, line #, actual code, relation to code SCO "owns" must also be shown. IIRC, SCO tried to skate around this requirement for about a year with various motions and delays. When discovery closed after SCO being allowed a look at the IBM code archives for Dynix, AIX and IBM's Linux contibutions (such as JFS) and taking dozens of depositions from IBM the BEST SCO could come up with was about 25-30 items that meet the burden of proof. Of those 25-30 most were things like .h files, the ELF binary format (which is public), and some Error Codes.

Critical to the case, even more so than showing infringement, is the issue of IF SCO even OWNS the copyrights on said System V UNIX code found in Linux, and IF they did (big IF) IBM has a contract with Novell (orginal owner or current owner depending on if you are SCO or IBM) that allows IBM an irrevokable right to use the System V UNIX code as they pleased since they paid for that sort of license. SCO is cooked about six different ways but whether they are roasted, boiled, BarBQ'd, broiled, fried, etc. will have to wait until after the close of discovery in the SCO vs Novell case. If the court (same judge by the way) decides in that instance SCO does NOT own the copyrights on UNIX code the case against IBM is over and IBM wins. The only issue to settle would be IBM's counterclaims, which wouldn't be worth much as SCO would be bankrupt without a win (or another infusion of cash in exchange for "IP" from the Microsoft fairy).

Ain't no System V UNIX code in Linux (1)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349456)

twiddlingbits opined:
Critical to the case, even more so than showing infringement, is the issue of IF SCO even OWNS the copyrights on said System V UNIX code found in Linux, ...
There ain't no System V code in Linux. All of the gaping holes in SCO's case that you have outlined do exist. But the fact that there is no System V code in Linux is yet another big hole. SCO is not claiming that IBM contributed System V code to Linux. They are complaining that IBM contributed homegrown AIX/Dynix code to Linux. Honest to God, SCO claims that since a tiny smidgen of System V code is in AIX/Dynix (which is perfectly legal), SCO magically gains control over the other 99.99% of AIX/Dynix that has nothing to do with System V.

IBM has pointed out that if SCO's theory were correct then SCO would have control over almost the entire software industry. IBM has depositions from all of the people from both sides involved in the System V contracts. None of those people agree with SCO's crazy theory that all of the software industry are belong to SCO.

Re:Ain't no System V UNIX code in Linux (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349926)

Thats true, it's another hole IBM pointed out in request for Summary Judgement. Don't forget the wild-ass claim that even IF System V code isn't in Linux (we KNOW it's not) and even if it was OK for IBM to contribute own code to Linux (it is) SCO still "owns" the "methods and concepts" pertaining to the way Linux operates because the way it operates is "smiliar to System V and we own everything to do with System V". Linus has debunked that idea time and again as have other kernal developers. But SCO still persists. SCO is just crazy, I think in any other court in any other state they would have been tossed out a long time ago.

Re:Ain't no System V UNIX code in Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17350776)

I think in any other court in any other state they would have been tossed out a long time ago.

I think that the judges have now decided that if SCO *insists* on giving away all its money to the legal profession, then fine, they won't block SCO's path to a totally empty wallet. But legally, I think they've decided that SCO has already reached the end of the road.

Re:Errr... (2, Interesting)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348790)

Are they trying to pull a Microsoft here - annoying the judge until he says something stupid and they can get him replaced? Or are they simply dumb and hard of hearing?

It seems that way, doesn't it?

SCO's legal team seems to be way out on a limb on this one. I can't help but wonder why any of them keep at it, when at this point it is going to be a highly publicized loss that will follow each of them for the rest of their careers. The usual behavior for lawyers in this situation is to tell the client that the case is lost, and focus on looking for new clients, but something seems to be overriding this normal response.

It makes me wonder if the legal team has something more important than their client's interests to protect. For instance, if there was a possibility that continuing this fiasco would lead to exposure of evidence implicating the lawyers themselves in a conspiracy with SCO and perhaps others to defraud the courts through pushing a frivolous suit... well, that would be criminal wouldn't it?

The SCO lawyers are fighting this thing as if their continued careers in law depended on it not going forward. And maybe that is the case.

Re:Errr... (1)

Pensacola Tiger (538962) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349362)

SCO's legal team seems to be way out on a limb on this one. I can't help but wonder why any of them keep at it, when at this point it is going to be a highly publicized loss that will follow each of them for the rest of their careers.

David Boies already lost a headline case (the 2000 challenge of the presidential vote in Florida), and it hasn't seemed to affect his career. Actually, for a certain type of client, the handling of the case by BS&F is a positive factor. I'll leave it up to you to figure out what kind of client, but the letters NTP (as in NTP vs RIM) come to mind.

Microsoft at it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17348252)

Although week-old as mentioned, moves like this make it clear who is behind the curtain. Despite the astroturfer team here on Slashdot trying to claim otherwise, when a company's lawyers swallow their their pride, dignity AND reputation in front of everyone plus the audience, it is obvious that gulp was lubricated with so big wad of cash they can retire after the case is over.

SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

Programmer_Errant (1004370) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348268)

Except that they're not the defendants in this case. Which is too bad since their twisted and distorted delusional logic would certainly support such an argument.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (5, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348394)

Except that they're not the defendants in this case.

I don't know - What about the counterclaims? SCO may have bankrupted itself fighting this battle, but IBM still plans to rape the corpse.


Which is too bad since their twisted and distorted delusional logic would certainly support such an argument.

Fortunately, I don't think corporations can plead insanity.

I say "fortunately", because by their very raison d'etre, corporations very much exhibit antisocial PD (what people normally mean by the phrase "criminally insane"), as defined by the DSM-IV (having three or more of the following traits):
  1. Failure to conform to social norms (have no meaning to a corporation)
  2. Deceitfulness, manipulativeness (if they can get away with something...)
  3. Impulsivity, failure to plan ahead (beyond the next quarter's earnings)
  4. Irritability, aggressiveness (if threatened, sue)
  5. Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others (OSHA exists for a reason...)
  6. Consistent irresponsibility (...so does Sarbanes-Oxley)
  7. Lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person (pay 'em off and call it a day)


Letting corporations plead insanity would amount to giving them carte blanche to rape, pillage, murder, and burn the planet.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348566)

Except pleading insanity doesn't get you off; it gets you locked up in mental hospital for the rest of your life, or at least until they decide you're no longer crazy and a danger to others.

I'm not sure what the corporate equivalent of locking you up in a loonie bin would be.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (5, Funny)

Teresita (982888) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348632)

I'm not sure what the corporate equivalent of locking you up in a loonie bin would be.

800 hours of community service chained to Steve Balmer in the Pentagon putting together cheap office chairs from China that are missing parts.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348924)

If I had mod points, your post would be on its way to +5 Funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17350968)

That would be deemed "Cruel and unusal punishment" i believe. Well, the "chained to Steve" part atleast. We've all seen how sweaty that guy becomes. Having a sweaty, panting, ranting and flailing Ballamer without his shirt on rambling on about "ease of use" would probably put anyone over the edge permantently :-)

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349492)

Except pleading insanity doesn't get you off; it gets you locked up in mental hospital for the rest of your life, or at least until they decide you're no longer crazy and a danger to others.

Which may be a longer sentence than regular imprisonment... There's also an argument that a verdict of "guilty, but insane" might be more appropriate in some cases.

I'm not sure what the corporate equivalent of locking you up in a loonie bin would be.

There probably isn't one, given that there isn't an equivalent of "the slammer"...

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349882)

I'm not sure what the corporate equivalent of locking you up in a loonie bin would be.

There probably isn't one, given that there isn't an equivalent of "the slammer"..

But there is one remedy however faulted. It is possible to have a corporate charter revoked. What many don't understand, or know today, is that corporations are were originally granted charters by government for the good of society, and if a corporation didn't help the public good they could have their charter rescended. In SCO's case what this woud mean is that all of SCO's assets would be auctioned off then the procedes would be used to settle outstanding debts, much like in bankrupcy.

Falcon

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

gatesvp (957062) | more than 6 years ago | (#17350322)

What is this "loonie [wikipedia.org] " of which you speak?

I have images of Scrooge McDuck [wikipedia.org] doing the swim through his pile of gold coins. All things considered, most corps would probably like this :)

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350638)

The key bit of that entry is "See also loony (short for "lunatic"), which is sometimes spelled 'loonie'".

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

prandal (87280) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348680)

Letting corporations plead insanity would amount to giving them carte blanche torape, pillage, murder, and burn the planet.
 
Hey, they are doing this on a grand scale already without ever having to plead anything.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348864)

Corporations don't do mad things. People do mad things. The people doing the mad things here are Darl McBride, the other members of the board of directors and their lawyers.

I guess they could plead insanity and get the medical treatment they require.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

curious.corn (167387) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348984)

Corporations are an artificial construct designed for a purpouse. The mechanisms and engineering built into this artificial creation are so that, assumed it was a person (and since it is for all practical purpouses a "legal person" the premise is acceptable) it manifests the behaviour of a psycotic sociopath.

There's a documentary film, "The Corporation", that neatly expounds this idea. Of course anyone unwilling to argue reasonably will dismiss it as commie drivel and move along... too bad.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349298)

This is true, but in England anyway, there is something called "lifting the veil of incorporation", which makes the people behind the corporation responsible in certain circumstances.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349696)

That term's thrown around a lot on Groklaw, but in the US, I believe the term is "piercing the corporate veil".

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349472)

Corporations don't do mad things. People do mad things. The people doing the mad things here are Darl McBride, the other members of the board of directors and their lawyers.

IIRC it is very much the case that "corporate people", especially with the laws which currently exist surrounding their behaviour would definitly qualify as "mad people".

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

Alizarin Erythrosin (457981) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349520)

SCO may have bankrupted itself fighting this battle, but IBM still plans to rape the corpse.

IBM was accused by SCO of breach of contract. IBM does a metric assload of consulting to loads of companies, all under contract. IBM won't stop until it is proven without a doubt that they did not breach contract in the slightest. Its all for clearing their name.

You forgot one. (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349902)

Blaming the victim for crimes that the perpretrator knows were committed, letting slip out a little about the commission, because s/he committed them.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (2, Interesting)

Dilaudid (574715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350486)

Hey you took all of that from that film "The Corporation". To quote their website [thecorporation.com] : the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?.

I always found it particularly ironic that the film was made by Big Picture Media Corporation, according to their website - a subsidiary company of British Columbia Film. I think BC's Annual Report [bcfilm.bc.ca] speaks volumes:

Economic Impact: Film and television production has emerged as a global industry with a worth of approximately $50 billion annually. Almost every country around the globe now competes for a share of this growing and very lucrative market
I think it's really good to see that an American Corporation has helped meet the niche needs of slashdot users, to give them some nice ideas to put in their posts, while at the same time turning a healthy profit ($4.5m) for the Canadians. Capitalism at it's best.

Re:SCO could use the insanity defense (1)

scorpionsoft (590852) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348396)

Perhaps they should be allowed to try an insanity offense? At least that would be new and exciting!

Memo To Santa from Chief McBride (1)

kwrxxx (1038350) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348460)

Dear Santa, As the beautiful Christmas season is upon us again I want you to know that if you fail to meet my demands I won't eat my vegetables all year long which will cause me to die of malnutrition. Here are my demands so you won't murder me: BLAH BLAH BALH

The Casablanca Dilemma (4, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348462)

This is an example of the Casablanca Dilemma, which works like this.

You're in Casablanca. If you are not out of Casablanca on tommorow's flight, you're a dead man. You have your tickets, but you need Captain Renault to provide you with papers. Louis charges a thousand francs for this "service",and you can only raise five hundred.

The only way to double your money overnight is to win big a Rick's roullette tables, which would be very unlikely at an honest table -- which Rick's decidedly are not. Sometimes Rick has been known to take pity on a hard luck case, but there's no special reason for him to help you out of all the other desperate folks. You beg Rick for help, but it's no use. He's already helped one hard luck case tonight, and for some reason he is too distracted to pay attention to anything you have to say.

So you put down your bet at Rick's crooked table, knowing that you are almost certainly a walking dead man. But it's better to keep playing than to stop, and remove all doubt.

Re:The Casablanca Dilemma (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349918)

The only way to double your money overnight is to win big a Rick's roullette tables, which would be very unlikely at an honest table -- which Rick's decidedly are not. Sometimes Rick has been known to take pity on a hard luck case, but there's no special reason for him to help you out of all the other desperate folks. You beg Rick for help, but it's no use. He's already helped one hard luck case tonight, and for some reason he is too distracted to pay attention to anything you have to say.

Excellent movie. However Rick never tells Sam to "play it again." Actually he tells Sam not to play it ever again.

Falcon

Re:The Casablanca Dilemma (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351096)

But he does tell Sam to "Play it".

"If she can stand it, I can! Play it!"

Re:The Casablanca Dilemma (1)

Vexler (127353) | more than 6 years ago | (#17350050)

Your point is taken. However, Casablanca ends on an upbeat note for Rick and Ilsa. For SCO, the "service" costs millions of francs, the dealer has singled them out and determined to take every last penny they have, and their "discovery" process has not yielded a winning hand for FOUR YEARS.

Wrong (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348538)

> ...the litigation firm currently in dispute with, among many, IBM, over
> supposed copyright infringing code in Unix...

Incorrect. It's a contract case. The only copyright infringement claim The SCO Group is making has to do with IBM continuing to distribute AIX after TSG supposedly terminated IBM's irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid up SysV license.

> -- has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case
> out.

Incorrect again. They have asked the court to reconsider its decision to toss most of TSG's evidence.

Re:Wrong (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17348696)

> Incorrect. It's a contract case. The only copyright infringement claim
> The SCO Group is making has to do with IBM continuing to distribute AIX
> after TSG supposedly terminated IBM's irrevocable, perpetual, fully paid
> up SysV license.

Sorry, but it's you that's wrong Mr Hasler.
Here's a breakdown of those Items that remain:

1 (JFS in Linux): Contract claim
2 (RCU in Linux): Contract claim
23 (Dynix EES in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
43 (Dynix TCP in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
90 (Dynix EES in Linux): Contract claim, negative know-how
94 (NUMA/SMP in Linux): Contract claim
113-142 (SPIE test suite in Linux): Contract claim
150-164 (STREAMS in Linux): Copyright claim
183-184 (Single Unix Specification ABI header files in Linux): Copyright claim
185 (atemalloc in Linux): Copyright claim
186-192 (misc Dynix stuff in Linux): Contract claim
194-203 (Monterey in AIX for Power): Copyright claim
204 (SysV in Dynix): Copyright claim
205-231 (Single Unix Specification material in Linux): Copyright claim
272-278 (ELF in Linux): Copyright claim

Total remaining items 106
Contract items 43, copyright items 63
Linux items 95, Dynix items 1, AIX items 10

Source: http://www.zen77087.zen.co.uk/nug/alleg/viols.shtm l [zen.co.uk]

For informed discussion, forget Groklaw's red dress worshipping zombie horde.
Go to the SCOX forum at Investor Village
http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&p t=m&clear=1 [investorvillage.com]

Is that you, Maureen? (1)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349186)

Or is it another paralegal, only now with Boies, Schiller & Flexner / Flower?

Boo.

I don't believe ... (2, Insightful)

cwsulliv (522390) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348668)

that SCO _ever_ thought they had a chance of winning this case; that their intention from the very beginning was just to draw it out as long as possible.

As long as they do, the 800-pound puppetmaster behind the curtain can continue to get mileage out of charges that Linux is tainted by IP infringement and that Linux users may be liable for stiff damages.

How Long Do They Get To Do This Stuff? (1)

Steve B (42864) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348672)

If a person keeps filing lawsuits demanding that the CIA and the Pope turn off the mind control beams focused on his apartment, a judge will eventually tell him "Go away and NEVER COME BACK with this nonsense".

If corporations are "legal persons", why aren't they bound by the same standard?

Re:How Long Do They Get To Do This Stuff? (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349446)

If a person keeps filing lawsuits demanding that the CIA and the Pope turn off the mind control beams focused on his apartment, a judge will eventually tell him "Go away and NEVER COME BACK with this nonsense".

Assuming said person did not wind up in a "nut house".

If corporations are "legal persons", why aren't they bound by the same standard?

When it comes to the law "corporate people" are rarely treated the same as real people. Especially when it comes to criminal law. There are no jails for "corporate people", "juries of peers" or even the requirement that they must do nothing other than attend a court.

Re:How Long Do They Get To Do This Stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17349564)

Oh please, everyone knows that the CIA doesn't have mind control beams... It's the NSA.

Will SCO's CEO Get Another Job... (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348806)

after he's spent all this money and lost it all at the justice crap table, rather than going out with the same amount of money, like a normal U.S. entrepeneur and...

CREATE SOMETHING PEOPLE WILL KNOCK YOUR DOOR DOW TO GET AT.

Re:Will SCO's CEO Get Another Job... (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348856)

The sorry thing is that he probably will (if he goes relativly free from this court process). He will not be usable for anything that comes close to normal producing company... but I'm guessing that some really ruthless "IP investment and monetization firm" (read "patent-blackmailing") could actually hire him. To me that kind of firms seems to be essentially a gambling setup financed by backers who doesn't risk anything and don't care if the firm folds.

Re:Will SCO's CEO Get Another Job... (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17351524)

Sure he will, most probably at Microsoft or a company connected to it, just like Rick Belluzzo did after ruining HP-UX and SGI.

They know how to show gratitude.

Watching the future of Darl McBride's career will prove interesting, as well as the rest of SCO's top executives.

Maybe Novell had a way to connecto SCO to Microsoft and that is part of the deal they signed (for about 350 million).

Ambiguity (2, Informative)

glas_gow (961896) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348820)

Sco

has quietly asked the courts to reconsider IBM's request to toss the case out.

This reads like SCO want the court to throw the case out, or that the court has thrown the case out, and SCO wants the court to reconsider. When, in fact, all that has happened is a sizeable portion of their case has been thrown out, not the case in it's entirety.

What did we expect? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#17348972)

When the potential proceeds from this lawsuit are really the only asset SCO has left? They have a duty to their shareholders to protect the companies assets until the bankruptcy court auctions off all the office equipment and padlocks the doors.

umm.. please? (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349414)

"..But your honor, this decision will hurt the vast majority of computer users"

    (Second council whispers in ear: psst.. that wont work for us, we are not Microsoft.)

"...I mean, with the security of our country at ris.."

    (psst ..your not George Bush)

"..err.. actually, its for the safety of the children."

    (psst.. rfid?)

"umm.. ??? please?"

    (there ya go)

Pull the Plug! (0, Offtopic)

nukemall (1025594) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349454)

Let it DIE Let it DIE!!! SCO DIE!

The worst kind of Vampire.. Those Blood Suck'n Lawyers will not give up until every drop of blood is sucked from it's corpse then that isn't enough they molest the corpse. They have a name for those kinds of blood sucken lawyers "Necrophilafags".

May they rot with the corpse..

Merry Christmas SCO

Re:Pull the Plug! (1)

wikes82 (940042) | more than 6 years ago | (#17349540)

It will not die... that easy.. SCO like most other Utah Companies are backed by LDS..

New evidence? what? (2, Insightful)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 6 years ago | (#17350178)

Hey, SCO! You're supposed to submit your evidence during discovery, not several years into the case! Stop wasting our time and give up already.

Re:New evidence? what? (1)

dacarr (562277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350824)

Erm... that goes to SCOR, not SCOX [google.com] . Wrong SCO.

The only thing wrong with this case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17350366)

is that it has been allowed to continue for this long despite SCO inability support their claims.
The only evidence they provide was at their conference in 2003, and that turn out to be code from BSD they (SC) had illegally removed the copyright notice from.

At least Darl McBride has shutup, and apparently he has let himself go since this start. He use to be in pretty good shape now he's a fatty.

Buy SCO (1)

elzurawka (671029) | more than 6 years ago | (#17350420)

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=SCO [google.com]

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=IBM&hl=en [google.com]

is it just me, or could IBM easily afford to simply buy SCO group? seams like if they just bought the company, they would have nothing to worry about, and the issue would end.

Re:Buy SCO (1)

rootus-rootus (151960) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350470)

You have to be kidding... The Nazgul are going to not only rape the corpse, but go after the families, salt the earth, and in general, make sure that no one else is stupid enough to do this sort of thing again. IBM could have bought SCO out of petty cash...

Problem with that (2, Informative)

jonasj (538692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350548)

is it just me, or could IBM easily afford to simply buy SCO group? seams like if they just bought the company, they would have nothing to worry about, and the issue would end.
If IBM buys SCO, you can expect that hundreds of other dying companies will file groundless lawsuits against IBM, hoping to get bought as well. IBM doesn't want that.

Other asshats would then sue IBM (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17350600)

That's why IBM never settles - never.

A bit late (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17350684)

They had over 3 years to present their evidence. In that time they presented nothing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?