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 Files To Amend Claims To IBM Case, Again

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the give-it-up dept.

Caldera 157

UnknowingFool writes "SCO filed a motion to allow it to change its claims against IBM. Again. A brief recap: In December 2005, SCO was supposed to finally list all claims against IBM. This was the Final Disclosure. In May 2006, SCO filed its experts reports to the court which discussed subjects beyond those in the Final Disclosure. Naturally, IBM objected and wanted to remove certain allegations. Judge Wells ruled from the bench and granted IBM's motion: SCO's experts cannot discuss subjects that were not in the Final Disclosure. Now, SCO wants to amend the December 2005 Final Disclosure to include other allegations."

cancel ×

157 comments

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

Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1, Funny)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556266)

This is ridiculous. I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO and put all these stupid legal battles behind us. They'll never win any of them, but they'll continue to be a nuisance. Ugghhh.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (3, Insightful)

databank (165049) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556312)

That may be what Sco wants...to be so aggravating that you give them money....

Besides who would want to buy a sinking ship with a huge hole in the bottom?

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17556382)

Oh, hey look, the subscriber got the first post, and surprise, surprise, it wasn't an intelligent one. In fact the whole post consists of him describing something that he doesn't know. I sure wish all first posts could consist of some dumbass with a few bucks underlining his own lack of intellect.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (3, Funny)

Poltras (680608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557888)

Someone with big buckets and a lot of arms?

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17556314)

Current Market Cap is $23.4 M. Feel free.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (5, Insightful)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556316)

No.

The SCO Group (NOT the Santa Cruz Operation, by the way, they're now called Tarantella) must be crushed into an unrecognizable mess of lies and hopelessness. There is no other way. Their attorneys should be disbarred, their officers should all spend a few decades in Federal prison, and anyone who bought stock in them because they saw the hope of a payout from this extortion scheme should rot in hell.

Actually, it may have one advantage (5, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556728)

I wonder. if a quick buy out of the company would enable the buyer to see all paper work? It may be useful for IBM and Novell to have the goods on MS and Sun for damages as well as perhaps put those at the top who perpertraited this crime in prison. I wonder how Gates (or Balmer) and McNealy would do in a federal prison?

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556774)

Bah, Federal prison is too good for them. Send them to a Turkish prison, or Gitmo.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

glsunder (241984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17559016)

Nah, just buy sco and move the offices to Baghdad (outside the green zone of course) and transfer everyone there.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17557126)

The SCO Group ... must be crushed into an unrecognizable mess of lies and hopelessness. There is no other way. Their attorneys should be disbarred, their officers should all spend a few decades in Federal prison, and anyone who bought stock in them because they saw the hope of a payout from this extortion scheme should rot in hell.


Don't forget the bit about "the lamentation of their women", that really needs to be worked in there somewhere.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558382)

Aside from perhaps Maureen O'Gara, I doubt that any women will be lamenting.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (2, Funny)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17559278)

Don't forget the bit about "the lamentation of their women", that really needs to be worked in there somewhere.

But that can't come until after IBM sees SCO driven before them, which has to happen after the aforementioned crushing. You gotta keep to the schedule that was given, y'know.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (3, Informative)

bored_lurker (788136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558414)

Just for what it's worth old SCO did become Tarantella, but they are not called that any more. Sun bought them about a year and a half ago. So Tarantella, aka old SCO does not exist anymore. They were completely assimilated into Sun.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (4, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556428)

"I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO and put all these stupid legal battles behind us."
Why would they do that?
What benefit would they get?
SCO hasn't stopped Linux so Linux companies would gain very little. IBM would gain nothing since it is getting all the good will it would ever want by standing up to SCO.
The one really big possible PR left in all this is one for Novell.
IF Novell gets to foreclose on SCO for none payment and gets back all the rights for Unix they could turn the Unix code base over too the FOSS community.
Of course if they did that then they would miss some of the nice checks from Sun and IBM.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557674)

What check from IBM? IBM has a fully paid, non-revocable, perpetual license.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558172)

IF Novell gets to foreclose on SCO for none payment and gets back all the rights for Unix they could turn the Unix code base over too the FOSS community.

Novell? Who is in bed with Microsoft? They'd probably turn it over to them instead.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558262)

IF Novell gets to foreclose on SCO for none payment and gets back all the rights for Unix they could turn the Unix code base over too the FOSS community.

Microsoft purchased Novell's soul to prevent this from happening.

That's what they've wanted all along... (5, Informative)

rkhalloran (136467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556444)

This has been one big nuisance suit by SCOX *HOPING* IBM would pay them off or buy them out to silence them. IBM's attitude has been "millions for defense, not one cent for tribute". They know paying SCOX off would prompt a flood of copycat suits from other busted vendors.

At this point it's pretty well proven (a) there's no infringing UNIX code in Linux (b) SCOX likely doesn't hold the copyrights, Novell does (c) SCOX' reading of the contract they inherited from AT&T & Novell is in conflict with their predecessors', and both have said so in depositions and (d) this has been a last-ditch attempt to keep their company afloat.

SCOX DELENDA EST!!

Re:That's what they've wanted all along... (4, Insightful)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556768)

This has been one big nuisance suit by SCOX *HOPING* IBM would pay them off or buy them out to silence them. IBM's attitude has been "millions for defense, not one cent for tribute". They know paying SCOX off would prompt a flood of copycat suits from other busted vendors.
Or, to put it another way (and to quote Rudyard Kipling):

"That if once you have paid him the Danegeld,
You never get rid of the Dane."

Re:That's what they've wanted all along... (1)

SlowMovingTarget (550823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17559436)

Let us also not forget that they were shipping their own version of Linux on into late 2006 under the GPL license. Even if their claims were true, they're moot.

Stupidity 101 (1, Redundant)

eddy (18759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556452)

Yeah, let's give Darl and Sontag more money for their extortion scam. That'll fucking teach them!

The counterclaims would bankrupt whomever buys SCO (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17556472)

Their legal liability thanks to their idiocy is enormous.

Whoever bought them could never survive the judgements that'll come down against SCO.

I think what's more interesting than SCO is what'll happen to SCO's backers that put them up to this (like microsoft who raised $86 million for SCO's lawsuit)

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556504)

Who would want to buy SCO ?

IBM want to make an example of them to discourage anyone else launching frivolous lawsuits against them and to turn around now and buy them would negate the point of the entire excercise.

Novell want money from SCO for the licence fees they are selling which Novell should have got the lions share of. They are hardly like to buy SCO when they could easily get all their assets anyway when SCO has to pay up.

I can't see anyone else being interested since the dreadful health SCO is currently in is nothing to the health they will be in a year or so when they have lost all these lawsuits and lost more money and assets in the process.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

LarsWestergren (9033) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556542)

I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO .

This comes up every time....

NO. For the same reason you shouldn't give money to hostage takers. You will only encourage them, and copycats, to do more of the same.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

sherpajohn (113531) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556622)

And how would this rid us of problems? You cannot simply withdrawl a lawsuit like this. Well they could try, but IBM's counterclaims would still stand. No, its better to let this run its course and let justice be served (though by the time it is served itwill be stone cold, much like revenge at its best).

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (5, Insightful)

ciw42 (820892) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556674)

I read a quote from Darl somewhere a good while ago saying that in all honesty, when they started their legal endeavours, they fully expected IBM to just buy them out. Guess IBM decided that it'd be more fun to bury them. Big time. And in the long-run of course, the case has actually done a good deal to strengthen the GNU/Linux community.

Even without a buyout, those involved in this nonsense have actually made a good deal of money - the lawyers, Darl and the other execs (who are on hefty salaries) who have done rather well from all this, thank you very much. The people I feel sorry for the actual engineers at SCO, as there can be no doubt the company won't come out the other end of this in any fit state to carry on. It used to be a damn good little company, providing a good product at sensible prices. Now look at them. They're just a bad joke.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (5, Interesting)

wrook (134116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558052)

All of the money made by the insiders is public knowledge. I quickly looked through the records last week (you can just do a google search for "insider trades SCO" and you will find a service that will list them all). From what I can tell, Baystar dumped about a million shares or so at between $3.50 and $4.00 at the end of 2004 (They were making 5 or 6 sell trades a day for months). I'm not sure if this ended up being a profit or a loss though (I forget the details... and the whole Bank of Montreal involvement made everything kind of complicated anyway).

The executives exercised stock options all the way up until the end of 2004. It seems they were mostly granted at between $1 and $2 and excercised for between $10 and $20, but there are some exceptions. I didn't add up all the money, but it was definitely in the multi-millions of dollars.

There are huge stock grants to a law firm (about 10 million shares), which I think is the law firm representing them (I assume for services rendered). So the absolute big winners seem to be the lawers, but the executives and Baystar seem to have made millions as well. The losers are the people who invested at anything over $4 (or the morons who sold short, not understanding that it takes *time* for a stock to fall).

As a disclaimer, I only quickly reviewed this material, so there may be errors in my summary. If you care about this stuff, I suggest you compile it properly yourself.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558798)

It used to be a damn good little company, providing a good product at sensible prices.
Are you referring to OldSCO (now Tarantella) or NewSCO (previously Caldera)?

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (2, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556840)

...I don't know why some company doesn't just put up a few Million dollars (or 10s of millions) to buy SCO and put all these stupid legal battles behind us...
Besides all the other reasons mentioned before you will not be able to buy SCOX for what it's worth on the stock exchange because the SCOX board has adopted a poision pill to deter hostile takeovers. Basically they say "We (the major insiders) determine what we should get paid - not the market!" (About 45% of the company is held by insiders... who wants to get a payoff)
From Infoworld 2004-08-31:
In an apparent response to industry rumors that SCO may become the target of a hostile takeover bid, SCO's Board of Directors has implemented a "shareholders rights plan" designed to deter unsolicited takeover attempts, McBride said. "We believe that this will basically keep any outside offers or potential takeovers that are not in the best interest of the shareholders at bay," he said. The plan, which was adopted by the board on Aug. 10, gives SCO's board the right to determine the "fair value" of the company in the event of a takeover attempt, McBride said.
Source:http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/H Nscocaps_1.html [infoworld.com]

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

ja (14684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556968)

No, please don't do that. You'll inherit all the litigation as well, be forced to pay the damages, go broke, commit suicide and then no asbetose-suit will be able to protect you from the flames of hell ...

Anything, but not that!

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556992)

Don't worry, IBM will buy everything there is to be bought, when the company will be totally liquidated. If, as a result of the legal battle, there will be something left (the most attractive parts - IP in Unix - will hopefully be invalidated)

buyout wouldn't do by statute (1)

jjohn_h (674302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558158)

They thought of buyout defense long ago
and have the pill and the statutes. No
chance here.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

insomniac8400 (590226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558734)

At this point no one can buy the company, because they will be liable for all of SCO's actions.

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558878)

those countersuits from IBM, Redhat and Novell are fearsome. No one wants a piece of that action

Re:Buyout SCO to rid us of problems (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558954)

I think the main reason you don't buy them out is that they own nothing of value, or nothing that is not already owned by it's theotical suitors.

SCO's got nothing but an opinion, and a hail mary out of the back of the end zone

once Novell get theirs, there won't be anything but satisfaction left for IBM. but it will still taste great.

Oh Boo Hoo (1)

jeremyclark13 (999183) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556276)

That big bad judge wouldn't let us tattle MORE on that big bad IBM.

there is only one SCO filing left. really. (5, Funny)

swschrad (312009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556298)

"oh, your Honor, we are but mere idiots drooling on our papers, we just want money. grant us our relief and give us lots of everybody else's money. also, your wallet and watch, hand 'em over."

No, one more beyond that... (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556756)

The one where they open the book to Chapter 7. [uscourts.gov]

actually, the chapter 7 will be involuntary. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558306)

any time three creditors have had enough, they can flip your crackling dry carcass over the edge into chapter 7.

Re:actually, the chapter 7 will be involuntary. (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558894)

any time three creditors have had enough, they can flip your crackling dry carcass over the edge into chapter 7.

Which begs the question of why somebody hasn't done this yet. Surely can't be the entertainment value of watching SCO twist gently in the wind...

Re:there is only one SCO filing left. really. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557558)

Well actually this is the only thing that SCO can do. I don't think their goal is to win. But to not get killed by IBM. If SCO can prove there case well enough to not get thrown out then they may be able to get off loosing the case and their own legal fees. Otherwise IBM can sue them back (and IBM has been asking some of its customers to keep track of any time loss due to this lawsuit including meeting discussing the matter) Asking for full compensation for there losses. IBM Legal Fees, Their customers time loss, potential loss of business. There is loosing a case where you have a legit claim and loosing a case where your claim is baseless. The first lets you save face, the latter will make the previous defendant the victim of your action and will become the plaintiff demanding reparations.

Re:there is only one SCO filing left. really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17557738)

lol "loosing". you fail at english.

IBM's rebuttal: (1)

MS-06FZ (832329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558586)

"oh, your Honor, we are but mere idiots drooling on our papers, we just want money. grant us our relief and give us lots of everybody else's money. also, your wallet and watch, hand 'em over."
"Your Honor, I am but a simple caveman: One day while gathering some food I was caught up in an icy river and frozen in a glacier for ten thousand years. I do not understand your complex world. But I do understand this: my client, the IBM corporation, requested and received final disclosure of the complaints to be brought against it by the plaintiff, SCO Group, and these complaints were not a part of that disclosure. Surely, your honor, if a simple caveman can understand this it must be equally evident to an enlightened man of modern times such as yourself."

Yeah, contracting the UFCL group to handle their legal defense was probably IBM's best move.

Re:there is only one SCO filing left. really. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17559542)

I think they're playing the only card they've got left - the latest antics seem so silly and provocative (like trying to overturn the 'de novo' ruling) that I think they're hoping for one thing - that the judges will get (too) pissed off and make a mistake. Something that can make them turn back and say "We haven't been getting a fair trial, let's start over". It won't help their case but it's the only way they'll get the FUD started again.

Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Paper (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556322)

Maybe we're just seeing what kind of lawyers you get when all you can pay them with is stock in a company whose assets consist solely of a huge scam lawsuit against IBM.

One of the precedents that IBM should produce by seeing this travesty trial to its just conclusion is penalties for the SCO lawyers who have been wasting court time with this obviously frivolous lawsuit. Why should taxpayers subsidize those lawyers with free access to the courts for their stockmarket scam? The SEC should look at their brokers, too, to see whether they are in on the deal - almost certainly they are.

This case shouldn't end with only strong precedents clearing Linux developers and distributors from the FUD SCO has pumped into the market for years now. It should end with disbarred lawyers and delicensed brokers, and probably punitive damages (paid to the court, compensating taxpayers) exceeding the profit those professional crooks have made from the stock transactions their work has been the smoke and mirrors to produce.

Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (2, Funny)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556480)

I agree, but good luck getting the US government to.

I love the following quote from Syriana:

"Some trust fund prosecutor, got off-message at Yale, thinks he's gonna run this up the flagpole, make a name for himself, maybe get elected some two-bit, congressman from nowhere, with the result that Russia or China can suddenly start having, at our expense, all the advantages we enjoy here. No, I tell you. No, sir. Corruption charges! Corruption? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulations. That's Milton Friedman. He got a goddamn Nobel Prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the streets. Corruption is why we win."

Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556788)

Gee, my favorite line from Syriana is "BOOM!!!" ;).

One of my favorite lines from living in New Orleans was "In Louisiana, people don't expect corruption. They demand it."

Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (4, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556592)

SCO paid cold hard cash for their lawyers. Cash from Microsoft and Sun that Novell is claiming should have been forwarded to Novell. But it was cash. There was an early move to make BS&F get paid in shares and a percentage of an SCO buyout. BS&F dropped that very quickly, either because they got a good look at SCO's case or because it would put them in co-conspirator type position with respect to Lanham act and racketering charges for being a direct benefit from the false valuation.

SCO paid a "fixed fee" to BS&F to manage all cases through appeals, I believe it was $29M. There is also a refillable misc-costs bucket of $5M that has already been topped up twice. The misc-cost bucket sort of puts a lie to the "fixed fee" handling of the lawsuit.

In any case SCO is now facing Novell asking for a lot of cash that SCO no longer has.

Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556712)

Hmm, hadn't noticed the lawyers trading their stock compensation for "costs++" accounting.

How does the Lanham act make SCO liable for anything? Is this the "Unix" copyright argument with Novell?

Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556740)

Is this the "Unix" copyright argument with Novell?


Er, not "copyright", trademark, which the Lanham Act covers.

Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556732)

There was an early move to make BS&F get paid in shares and a percentage of an SCO buyout.

No, that's not right. The buyout part is correct, but not the shares. There was an early claim made by both TSCOG and BS&F that BS&F were taking the case on contingency. That was true as far as it went, but I didn't go very far. The reality was that BS&F were taking the case on contingency or flat rate, whichever was greater. However, both groups publicly touted the contingency and were completely silent about the flat rate. The reason was plain to see; it was a conspiracy by TSCOG and BS&F to make the case appear stronger than it was, and, after all, that's what this case has been about since the beginning--appearance. As yourself, why would a legal firm take a case on contingency? They only would if they expected to make more than it cost them.

-Loyal

Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (2, Informative)

elrond2003 (675701) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558300)

Technically, there was a time when the payment was to be some large block of stock, complete with anouncements form Blake Stowell that now BSF were partners in the company and lawsuit. Then the stock tanked and BSF decided that cash was better. The so-called "contingency" payments were not the usual kind of contingency payments in a lawsuit, I.E. the lawyer gets paid a part of WHAT you win IF you win. They were, BSF gets 20% of any money that TSG got from certain transaction types that were related to the scam. Some listeners at the conference call thought that it was funny that some of the "contingency" payments had already been made and the case had just been filed, for instance.

And Boies was Al Gore's lawyer in FL in 2000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17557552)

What does your post say about Al Gore?

Besides, Boies fucked up back then, too. SCO isn't the first time.

Re:Lawyers Worth Their Weight in Dirty, Shoddy Pap (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558580)

Moderation +3
    80% Insightful
    20% Flamebait

SCO still has the money to pay asTrollMod'ers to anonymously flame Slashdot posts.

Like a bad zombie movie (5, Funny)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556364)

The hero keeps firing his gun at the oncoming zombie, shouting "Why... wont... you... DIE!"

Re:Like a bad zombie movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17556736)

"Why... wont... you... DIE!"

Because beneath this SCO there is more than lawyers. Beneath this SCO there is a Microsoft, Mr. Domain, and Microsoft have bottomless pits of money.

Re:Like a bad zombie movie (2, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556782)


The hero keeps firing his gun at the oncoming zombie, shouting "Why... wont... you... DIE!"

Because this zombie has the head stuck up its ass. Hero will have to aim at the lower torso for the Win.

true horrow show: slashdot's editors (0, Troll)

jihadi_schwartz (989888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557050)

Ever notice the "beat the rush and see it early" link at the top of slashdot when a new story is about to come out?

Sounds good, doesn't it? To be able to view the pages linked to in the article before the tens of thousands of other slashbots click to view them.

Did it ever occur to you that you're taking part in cyber-terrorism?

That's right: Slashdot's editors are cyber-terrorists. They coordinate a DOS against small websites, and they attempt to collect moeny from people who wish to be spared the effects of said DOS. Terrorism, plain and simple.

You can fight this and other crimes by slashdot's editors by joining anti-slash [anti-slash.org] . Anti-slash is committed to forcing the editors to own up to their numerous crimes against the geek community. Until our demands are met, we will relentlessly discredit them as a news service through trolling and other means.

Also, props to poopbot and the alan thicke troll. We remember your accomplishments.

In sacred jihad,

jihadi_31337

| _ __ | |
_) |_|_)__/_| |
(_) o

Re:Like a bad zombie movie (1)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557774)

Never use Worcester Sauce to embalm a dead company. Do NOT use chainsaws to dismember it.

FINAL Disclosure (2, Funny)

thetroll123 (744259) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556402)

Jesus. Which part of "Final" are these clowns having trouble understanding?

Re:FINAL Disclosure (1)

Cairo_911 (1037280) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557742)

Ya kinda get the feeling that they also enjoy splinters, chewing tinfoil and root canals.

Re:FINAL Disclosure (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558410)

Erm, I think this speaks for itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination_2 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Destination_3 [wikipedia.org]

I'm being told that "Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted." Hopefully including this here will help post it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_I [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_2 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_III [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_IV [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_V [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VI [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII [wikipedia.org]

Nope, it didn't, maybe including this here too convince it that the post should be allowed... cuz there's more, although I think you can guess where it's going...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VIII [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_IX [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_X [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XI [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XII [wikipedia.org]

Woohoo finally!

Final? (5, Funny)

techpawn (969834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556414)

They're using Square's definition of "Final" arn't they...

Hey, I watch enough TV... (1)

monkeyboythom (796957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556568)

Even I know when someone asks, "is this your final answer," you know that's the last chance you get.

..and Fantasy (3, Funny)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558594)

They're using Square's definition of "Final" arn't they...

Appropriate since their entire case is "Fantasy".

IANAL (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556426)

I don't have detailed knowledge of the US legal system, but isn't SCO stretching it beyond it's limits in a way rarely seen before. And certainly with such high profile cases with companies of these sizes?

Re:IANAL (4, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556460)

You can alway ask the court for leave to amend your claims against the other party, but the other side gets to argue against it. I doubt SCO will win on this front.

Re:IANAL (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557078)

The thing is that SCO has already changed their claims a number of times, to the point that the case has changed from being about copyright to being about breach of contract. Ofcourse there is no breach of contract if there is no copyright infringement, but for some odd reason this seems to be what happened.

Re:IANAL (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556884)

I don't have detailed knowledge of the US legal system, but isn't SCO stretching it beyond it's limits in a way rarely seen before. And certainly with such high profile cases with companies of these sizes?
Neither am I a lawyer, but it seems to me that SCOX has gone long past the point of no return. They have to do everything and anything to drag it out as long as is possible. But, your insight is correct, I'm unaware of any situation where things have gone the way the SCOX suits have gone. The complex nature of software code, Patents, and Copyright has allowed it, but the one redeeming factor here is that we may actually fix parts of the system as a result, but perhaps that is wishful thinking.

What I'd really like to see is criminal prosecution for SCOX's handling of this, including the prosecution and/or sanctions not only of the SCOX administrators, but of their lawyers and law firm. I'm not sure this is possible though, and I'm sure that the system, judged and handled by lawyers, is designed to protect those lawyers without overwhelming evidence of actual criminal activity. I'm sure the justification is something like "We did it at the direction of our client, we're just doing our jobs."

Re:IANAL : IANALE(ither) (1)

jefu (53450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557070)

But...

It seems to me that criminal prosecutions of SCO's legal team would (even if something that the law allows) set a precedent that would make it easier for large/rich corporations to seriously threaten smaller corporations or individuals who want to challenge them in court. Perhaps there could be Iis?) some kind of middle ground that would allow any party to a lawsuit to file a complaint that would result in fines, censure or some other less severe punishment for the legal team.

Similarly, putting SCO officers in jail on the basis of their legal case would have the same effect. But if it could be proved that they brought the case to manipulate their stock prices, or if they committed perjury at any point along the way, jail time would be more than appropriate.

Re:IANAL : IANALE(ither) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17558498)

Oh boy yeah, let's intimidate the lawyers so no one with a case, just or otherwise, will dare go up against the mighty.

Now Darl's brother might well be guilty of some malfeasance. BSF is getting as raw a deal out of this as anyone else -- they're not getting paid.

Questions for lawyers (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557334)

What's the textbook illustration of a "vexatious litigant"?

Is SCO better or worse than that textbook example?

Is there a strategic advantage to IBM in not filing a motion for sanctions? If so, what is it?

What are some possible reasons why a judge might act as though SCO were a legitimate plaintiff?

Do SCO's lawyers have grounds for walking away from the case? Aren't attorneys entitled to "fire" their clients if the clients have materially misled them?

Re:IANAL (1)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557988)

It's time for SCO's lawyers to start facing some contempt-of-court charges for their shenanigans.

Re:IANAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17558924)

It's time for SCO's lawyers to start facing some contempt-of-court charges for their shenanigans.

Dude, you've watched too much TV. In reality, lawyers are rarely charged with contempt of court, even though "Law & Order" or "The Practice" would have you believe otherwise.

your honor, i OBJECT! (3, Funny)

teh_chrizzle (963897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556574)

on what grounds?

on the grounds that it's disasterous to my case.

Re:your honor, i OBJECT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17556654)

on the grounds that it's disasterous to my case.

Objection denied, grounds sustained.

Re:your honor, i OBJECT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17556862)

Objection denied, grounds sustained.

Good call!

I used to be a sadistic, beastial, necrophiliac... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17556688)

... then I realised I was just flogging a dead horse

Re:I used to be a sadistic, beastial, necrophiliac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17558320)

All court activities would be better if they contained random likes from "What's Up, Tiger Lily?"

"Is the defendant present?"

"Yes, your honor."

"Name three presidents." Although in court it would have to be "name three precedents".

setting up for appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17556722)

It's more likely that they don't actually think this will fly in THIS court, but they might be setting up for an appeal. This case isn't going anywhere for awhile folks. Not only does the trial have to conclude, but you KNOW that SCO is going to appeal.

Re:setting up for appeal (3, Insightful)

rkhalloran (136467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557458)

The consensus from those following this circus is that the reason the judges have let this run on as long as it has it exactly to scuttle attempts at appeal; they've given the SCOundrels every opportunity to come up with some credible evidence, IBM has produced their entire source repository for them to look for infringing code in, and still the judge's comment at the end of discovery was "is this all you've got?". At this point they're trying hard to get any sort of disputable points into the record to keep this thing going. When the IBM counterclaims kick in there's going to be a glowing greasespot in Lindon where once stood Caldera, er, SCOX.

SCOX DELENDA EST!!

Perhaps they misread... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556988)

FINAL disclosure as IANAL disclosure.... seems apt, if you ask me.

This is all about delay (4, Insightful)

MojoRilla (591502) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556990)

Yet more delay from SCO.

SCO is essentially saying the following:
Your honor, since the trial date has been postponed to after Novell (September 2007), let us amend our "final" disclosure. IBM has lots of time to respond to this, so it causes no harm.

SCO obviously doesn't understand the word final. They also say (this is a quote):
There also is a public interest in disputes being resolved on their merits, which granting of the requested relief would advance.

The public interest is in having this matter resolved in a reasonable time frame. SCO had 3.8 years (from when they filed in March of 2003 until when final disclosure happened in December of 2006) to assemble their evidence. The longer this charade goes on, and that Linux is under SCO's cloud of FUD, the more damage SCO is doing.

SCO has tried to delay at every turn during this trial, so this comes as no surprise. It now seems obvious that this whole lawsuit was an attempt to delay Linux adoption by destroying Linux credibility in the marketplace. This whole thing was about delay.

Re:This is all about delay (2, Insightful)

bstone (145356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557694)

They have already been able to delay until, magically, Vista got released. Now that Vista is having a bit of a problem with traction in the marketplace, perhaps it's time for some more "emergency" delay. Not that anyone is really concerned any more that there is anything wrong with Linux, but that seems to have been the original idea, and perhaps some of the principles still think they can generate some more FUD out of it.

Re:This is all about delay (2, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557866)

It now seems obvious that this whole lawsuit was an attempt to delay Linux adoption by destroying Linux credibility in the marketplace.

Unfortunately I did not bookmark the page and cannot find it now, but back in the day Darl had a moment of candor during an interview and when asked why he filed the suit said (paraphrasing}:

"We were approached by outside parties who asked us to use the power of our license to help monitize Linux."

In his attempt to deflect bad feelings away from SCO he . . .told the truth. Just once.

This wasn't merely an attempt to discredit Linux, it was an attempt to "virally infect" it with propriatary code so that it could not be freely distributed.

Who those outside parties are was never named, but you can note who jumped up to pay SCO license fees of a million or more and draw your own conclusions. There were only two and it's interesting to note as well that one of those license fees almost exactly matched SCO's legal expenses up to that time; and I'm sure that the fact that these two licensees being the two that would most benefit from a "monitized" Linux was a complete coincidence.

KFG

Re:This is all about delay (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558462)

SCO is essentially saying the following: Your honor, since the trial date has been postponed to after Novell (September 2007), let us amend our "final" disclosure. IBM has lots of time to respond to this, so it causes no harm.

Yes, I can't wait for IBM's response. It'll be something along the lines of: What is the point of deadlines and procedures if they can keep changing things? Also, it's been 3 #@%%!% years.

My plan for IBM (2, Funny)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17556998)

1. Draw out court case as long as possible to make SCO waste more cash.
2. Crush SCO completely in court to the point even the Judge laughers at SCO.
3. Buy SCO out after they are about to declare they are bankrupt for 1$.
4. Have a big camp fire using the SCO buildings and transfer all SCO remaining staff to the "Whipping Boy" Department.

and just for kicks and giggles
5 . Profit

Re:My plan for IBM (1)

BrettJB (64947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17559720)

I fear I must point out the fact that you have forgotten the "???" Step.

Resources -- At least IBM has big pants (2, Interesting)

Qubit (100461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557142)

At least IBM has big pants with deep pockets. I mean, how long has this farce been going on? ...And what, pray tell, will IBM see (in terms of monetary relief) when it's over?

I mean, SCO is floundering like a stuck pig on the end of a deep-sea fishing line. They're bleeding all over the friggin' ocean and their lawyers are sucking up the blood as fast as it's pouring out.

How soon before McBride and the boys finally run dry and succumb to their fate? Will there be any money to pay Novell for the licensing fees they are due? Will there be any money to pay IBM's legal team for this long, drawn-out court case?

Something doesn't sit right in my mind when a company can use its dying breath to unfairly inconvenience other companies. If SCO doesn't have any money left to pay its debts when the "curtain is coming down" on this case, can the judge haul off and McGwire the money from the SCO gang like candy from a pinata?

I hope so.

Re:Resources -- At least IBM has big pants (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557258)

At least IBM has big pants with deep pockets. I mean, how long has this farce been going on? ...And what, pray tell, will IBM see (in terms of monetary relief) when it's over?

Just guessing, but I expect IBM doesn't want to be raped over a barrel by some cowboy outfit that has some tenuous claim on IBM's business. I'm sure they could have paid up, or bought them out, and perhaps with hindsight they may even have done it. But at this point they just want to see SCO die in a fire and send out a message to any other SCO wannabe.

Re:Resources -- At least IBM has big pants (2, Insightful)

Gulik (179693) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558356)

But at this point they just want to see SCO die in a fire and send out a message to any other SCO wannabe.

(With apologies to JMS and Vir Cotto)

"What do you want, IBM?"
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when the judge cuts off your head and sticks it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations of law school graduates that some cash grabs come with too high a price. I would look up at your penniless eyes and wave, like this." [waves, smiling]

This is damaging credibility (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17557438)

I'm from Europe and have witnessed this case being mentioned every once in a while. It seems like some kind of virus; the thing which you cannot kill and it just pops up every once in a while.

What I fail to understand is that the American justice department is allowing all this to continue. To which I'd like to immediatly add that this whole ordeal is more damaging than people might realize. For me its also portraying the whole justice system as something which you really can't take too seriously. Jury courts? Sure, try to work on their emotion. Trials with no end because no evidence is being produced what so ever? Sure; only in America so it seems.

What makes me look upon this with a little disdain for this, arrogant if you will, IMO display of incompetence is the sheer fact that SCO has also tried this in Europe just once. The only thing they ended up with was a threat for some major fines (due to plain out slander) if they pulled a stunt like that again.

What is it with these people? If they need to apply the law and it allows for grand mockeries like this wouldn't it make sense to get something in motion to actually /change/ those laws or is this something people weren't hired to do or set in motion, resulting in nothing ever changing?

Guys, this isn't only hurting business. Its hurting your credibility too!

Re:This is damaging credibility (2, Interesting)

gtall (79522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558346)

OF course the case has been going on too long. It is not the U.S. Justice Department though. They have no control over the courts which are in a separate branch of government (branches: legislative, judicial, and executive --- Justice Dept. in this last).

The reason for the delay, outside of shady lawyers, is that the justices involved are bending over backwards to prevent any successful appeal of their future rulings. A successful appeal would make them look bad and hand SCO a victory it ill-deserves.

The shady lawyers, in this case, first got in because of greed, i.e., the promise of shaking down IBM for billions. Now they are mainly attempting to save their collective asses from all sorts of perils including being sued by what's left of SCO for screwing up the case. So they are gaming the system about as far as any lawyers could. It will be interesting to see if the judges don't penalize them personally for this.

Gerry

Identify Source Code (1)

VengefulCynic (824720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557526)

I find it fascinating that SCO's lawyers attempt to use the following quote to damn IBM when at the core of it is the point that contested source code was supposed to have been identified by SCO back in December 2005 and it still hasn't been.
SCO also complains that under IBM's proposal "SCO's expert(s) would have to reach final conclusions regarding IBM's [alleged] misappropriation of SCO's material" (Opp'n at 12; SCO's Fifth Point). Here again, SCO misstates IBM's proposal. IBM proposes only that the Court impose deadlines for the parties to identify the Allegedly Misused Material. IBM's proposal requires neither that the parties rely on experts nor that any experts that might be used by parties finalize their expert reports before the close of all fact discovery. Under IBM's proposal, the parties' experts would need to reach final conclusions before the close of fact discovery only with respect to the identification of the source code and other material that is at issue in this case.
I mean, seriously... even if IBM let SCO have all of their expert witnesses and everything else SCO wants, they still wouldn't have a case without that source code. I think that demonstrates what a transparent effort this has been by SCO to get IBM to pay them money to go away.

Other allegations include: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17557790)

IBM:

1) picks its nose at the table;
2) farts and blames it on the dog;
3) doesn't wash its hands after using the washroom;
4) is a rip-off of the shifted characters HAL;
5) secretly funding the forces of evil blocking the truth spoken by the intelligent Richard C Hoagland;
6) runs with scissors;
7) used the letters S, C, and O in a complete word;
8) smells bad.

YoU FAIL it!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17557950)

Sanct1ions, and learn what mistakes

Final (2, Funny)

mrhandstand (233183) | more than 7 years ago | (#17557958)

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

--Inigo Montoya

They hired a new investigator (3, Funny)

wardk (3037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558116)

OJ Simpson is hot on IBM's trail, won't be long till they find the smoking gun.

SCO is paying him in stock

JFS? (1)

FireIron (838223) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558160)

JFS derived from SCO Sys V? Eh? The first IBM JFS I recall is the one that came with AIX/6000 (circa 1990), which was BSD-based, by way of SunOS. Sun happily licensed the source code for (BSD-based) SunOS to IBM, because it was in the process of replacing its old & tired BSD-based OS with it's new Solaris SVR5-based hotness. All of the header files in AIX/6000 thus had the Sun copyright statement in them...at no point did SCO Sys V come into this.

items vs. claims (1)

jjohn_h (674302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17558310)

SCOX is not trying to change its claims against IBM. It is trying to amplify its evidentiary list submitted in December 2005 just at the imposed deadline.

The requested additions to the list are late by more than one year and would interfere mightyly with the Partial Summary Judgement motions currently being briefed and set to be heard early in March.

Not only that but the proposed additions are of the vaporous kind that lead both the Discovery Magistrate and the Trial Judge to strike 184 items from the evidentiary list.

SCOX is grasping at straws, there is nothing else within reach. I thought it was tasteless that judicial officers were taunting Saddam Hussein when hanging him. But I certainly wish to see something equivalent for the SCOX bastards some day.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>