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 Loses

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the finish-him dept.

Caldera 643

An anonymous reader writes "The one summary judgement that puts a stick into SCO's spokes has just come down. The judge in the epic SCO case has ruled that SCO doesn't own the Unix copyrights. With that one decision, a whole bunch of other decisions will fall like dominoes. As PJ says, 'That's Aaaaall, Folks! ... All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end. But we must say thank you to Novell and especially to its legal team for the incredible work they have done. I know it's not technically over and there will be more to slog through, but they won what matters most, and it's been a plum pleasin' pleasure watching you work. The entire FOSS community thanks you for your skill and all the hard work and thanks go to Novell for being willing to see this through."

cancel ×

643 comments

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

Hurrah! (1, Funny)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189319)

What more be said?

Re:Hurrah! (4, Funny)

Filter (6719) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189443)

Not heck of lot.

Re:Hurrah! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189455)

> What more be said?

...well,

"Hey Darl! McBride! Caldera's on fire!
We don't need no water, let the motherfucker burn!
BURN, MOTHERFUCKER, BURN!"

...comes to mind as a good start. We wouldn't want to go overboard on the Schadenfreude, after all.

Re:Hurrah! (5, Informative)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189595)

I think we need to mass mail to them and let them know this page of theirs [sco.com] is a lie.

SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers.

Re:Hurrah! (5, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189825)

You can send them feedback from here [sco.com] .

I wrote this:
Subject: You have an error on your website...
Message: It says, "SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers."
NO, YOU DON'T! HA! HA!
Now get those lies off your website.
Cheers!

And then I got the message: Thank you for your feedback.
And in smaller print: You will be hearing from us soon.

Do you think that was a threat?

Re:Hurrah! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189829)

"What more be said?"

Um, I don't owe $699 and I get to throw stones at McBride like he said we could if SCO was wrong?

And does anybody remember Seth? A poster here on /. when all this started that went on and on how SCO was so right? Seth, were are you now? Got anything to say?

Re:Hurrah! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189895)

What more be said?

"needs to"?

Re:Hurrah! (2, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189979)

Somehow, I'd expected a less matter-of-fact headline.

And much more gloating.

And yet... (4, Informative)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189339)

SCOX is up 6 cents at the end of the trading day. I t boggles the mind how their stock has performed during all this bad news..

Re:And yet... (5, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189373)

That's because the ruling came out *after* trading hours.

--
BMO

HA! (2, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189501)

Ha ha HA HAH!

Re:And yet... (1)

darkrowan (976992) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189671)

Yep. Expecting Monday to have an opening of.... *shakes magic 8ball* under a buck? They're only 50 cents or so above that.

They're effectively bankrupt (0)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189951)

They warned in their SEC filings that a loss in this litigation would harm their ability to operate as a "going concern."

The judge ruled that

  1. both the Microsoft and Sun licenses were covered by the APA (That's 16 million)
  2. that SCO was supposed to pass on 100% of the revenues, and receive a fee back of 5%
  3. that SCO has breeched its fudiciary duty to Novell
SCO doesn't have $16 million on hand, doesn't have equity worth $16 million (with this judgment, their net worth is negative), and there is no way that the PIPE Fairy will be paying another call.

They were big talkers, but now they're just dickheads [trolltalk.com] .

Get ready to see SCO trying to trade as SCO.bk

Re:They're effectively bankrupt (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20190037)

The judge ruled that

      1. both the Microsoft and Sun licenses were covered by the APA (That's 16 million)


No. His actual ruling left open how much money was involved. There's some liability there but not necessarily anything like 16 million:

The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.

The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of SVRX products contained in each agreement.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189953)

I'm a futures trader based in the UK (and I've been short your ESU7 futures all week, thanks!), but I do some equities as well. It has annoyed me no end that I have been unable to secure a short sale of SCOX. Of course, with the market conditions the way they are, a bankrupt tech stock could well go to zero before long. Oh well... ...and I'm using a linear scale to be mean! [yahoo.com]

Re:And yet... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189571)

A sim ply fact since darl took control. SCOX goes up on Bad news. It happened nearly every single time. I can't wait to see what monday will bring though.

That IS performance (2, Funny)

vthokie69 (549779) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189605)

Six cents must have doubled their stock value.

ans: dead cat bounce ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189871)

A half-joke in investor circles that even a dead cat will bounce if you drop it far enough. "eh, this stock is only a nickel and it was worth five dollars last quarter, I'll buy twenty shares and see if anything comes of my dollar..."

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189993)

Will SCOX's UnixWare be GRATIS???

Wait a moment!!!

Will the source code of SCOX's UnixWare be released to the public because of the GPL violation/copyrights owning violation?

Too Long (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189341)

The Us court system wasted far too much time, money and effort in this case.

Kicking their own asses... (1)

logicassasin (318009) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189343)

I'll bet all the companies that forked over money for unix licenses are kicking themselves in the ass right about now.

Re:Kicking their own asses... (5, Funny)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189631)

I paid $699 and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.

Re:Kicking their own asses... (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189859)

I paid $699 and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.
If that's what you have to show for your $699, you're still one t-shirt better off than everyone else... :-)

Unless it has a photograph of Darl McBride on it, of course! Although in that case, you could still sell it to a bunch of angry nerds so they could tie it to a pole, gather as an angry mob and set it on fire and stamp on it all the time shouting "Death to the great Satan!" in some Middle Eastern tongue.

Re:Kicking their own asses... (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189743)

Actually, I wonder if they couldn't sue SCO to get the money back. Better act quickly though, while they still have any to get...

Re:Kicking their own asses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189977)

Not really, the main one was Microsoft and they did it to undermine Linux and get the whole SCO bandwagon rolling.
Now the chickens have come home to roost, but not in Redmond... yet.

I'm pretty sure at this stage that Microsoft has no regrets over boosting SCO.

More (4, Interesting)

Phroggy (441) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189345)

I know it's not technically over and there will be more to slog through,
When will it be technically over, and when will there be no more to slog through?

Re:More (3, Insightful)

vthokie69 (549779) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189713)

When SCO files for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

Re:More (1)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189971)

Burnz....

When appeals are exhausted . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189849)

. . . and not everthing was decided in the summary judgments, so there's still more that SCO can do to drag this out, if they don't run out of money first

Old opera cliche (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189925)

When will it be technically over, and when will there be no more to slog through?
Reports are that Montserrat Caballé [wikipedia.org] has been seen in the courtroom, warming up for her rendition of "You're crap and you know it".

And as we all know, it ain't over until... then.

Who stands to gain? (1)

El Jynx (548908) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189933)

There were rumors (facts? can't remember) about M$ and SCO being in bed with one another, one way or another. M$ has already proven their marketing division pretty much supercedes everything in their thought processes. So, one wonders: SCO has locked several companies (and their judicial advisors) in a long load of crap for quite some time. Who stands to gain from this? What other resources did their actions lock down? Could M$ be looking to pull a quickie somehow - for example, keep IBM or Novell busy while they quietly slip through a patent, product theft, social engineering sollicitation? I'm just brainstorming here, but these are the backlines that company deals operate on. It's also likely that there will be multiple plans within plans influencing each other so as to maximise effect irrespective of any outcome, short or long, right or wrong. Too bad for them that such plans tend to leave obvious logical trails. Brainstormers, unite! Let's uncover the truth!

Yeah, me too. Truth is utterly subjective and, indeed, fat chance. But it's fun to rant once in a while ;)

- Jynx

And all of a sudden.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189347)

A million Redmond developers cried out in pain!

Re:And all of a sudden.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189593)

I thought that the managers, the developers are posting their resumes at monster.com

Re:And all of a sudden.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189791)

A hundred chairs were flung angrily across one room and crashing out the window.

Ah ok Novell owns teh UNIX (c) (0, Flamebait)

McNihil (612243) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189351)

Wow that definitely puts the Microsoft Novell deal in a MUCH clearer light... ok who is whos biatch now?

Re:Ah ok Novell owns teh UNIX (c) (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189721)

Wow that definitely puts the Microsoft Novell deal in a MUCH clearer light... ok who is whos biatch now?


Regardless Novel has redistributed the Linux kernel and the GNU tools so many times that the GPL pretty much means it is now a non-issue. I guess they could have some fun with Microsoft over it but it's not as if it will have any implications for stuff that matters ; )

Summary is Flamebait (5, Insightful)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189359)

All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

Uhm, the reason they lost is because they picked a fight with players who had billions of dollars, and a very well-established team of expensive lawyers, ready to fight.

They were Germany picking a fight with Russia.

Most people who get sued unfairly don't have that luxury.

Re:Summary is Flamebait (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189423)

"Uhm, the reason they lost is because they picked a fight with players who had billions of dollars"

No. They lost because they were _wrong_.

They had funding from Microsoft and Sun to go through with this (the "licenses" SCO sold them in 2003).

What we're all waiting for now is when Yarro, Anderer and McBride go to jail.

--
BMO

Re:Summary is Flamebait (4, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189541)

No. They lost because they were _wrong_.

While this is true, I think it's also fair to say that a big reason that IBM got to show that SCO was wrong was because IBM has truckloads of money.

If SCO had sued me instead, SCO wouldn't have lost because they were wrong, because I wouldn't have had the money to show that they were wrong. I would have had to find a lawyer willing to work pro bono.

Re:Summary is Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189649)

What we're all waiting for now is when Yarro, Anderer and McBride go to jail.

McBride won't go to jail, he's got snipers protecting him!

Re:Summary is Flamebait (3, Interesting)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189429)

The reason SCO lost is that SCO was wrong. SCO has a pretty good legal team too and that is why they were able to stay in the game this long, even though they had a very weak case with no real evidence presented. Well, that and some very tolerant judges.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Denial93 (773403) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189361)

...furniture stores report chair shortages all over Washington State.

Let's have a party (1, Interesting)

tmk (712144) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189367)

When this is not an occasion for celebration - I don't know. What about an SCO party? You can use facebook, upcoming.org and all the web 2.0 platforms to plan a party near you. Lots of people will be eager to join. Try it now.

For once.. (1)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189369)

Something positive came out of a lawsuit? Not just mutual losses? Seriously though, as with all things legal, it is anything but set in stone. Still, cautious optimism is deserved.

Re:For once.. (2, Insightful)

Rydia (556444) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189615)

Wha? Lots of things are set in stone. Nearly nothing is overturned, ever, so trial court decisions and findings are nearly always set in stone, when they deal with facts.

This dealt with facts. SCO did not own UNIX. A review court would have to find the trial court abused its discretion in doing this. I don't think anyone believes that court actually would.

IANAL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189391)

I have a tight anus and it needs to be pounded

It ain't gonna pound itself back to the stone ages, boys

Get busy

- Anne

Fair??? Language, please... (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189393)

I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

How many BILLIONS of dollars in lawyers fees, thousands of hours of (taxpayer-funded) court costs, and millions of manpower hours has this farce wasted all to come up with the "right" outcome, that SCO has absolutely no basis for this fiaSCO?

Sorry, I can't call this "sort[ed] out in the end" unless Glen gets to personally pull the trigger with Darl standing against the wall. And every stockholder in SCO, IBM, Novell, Redhat, and every open source developer, and several others, get to piss on the corpse.

Re:Fair??? Language, please... (1)

Palshife (60519) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189535)

Even so, your frustration is with the suit having been brought in the first place. The system works, SCO just decided to engage in some blatant abuse.

Re:Fair??? Language, please... (5, Funny)

tmk (712144) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189545)

You forgot the billions of hours slashdot posters used to create countless amout of SCO rants and flames.

Re:Fair??? Language, please... (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189599)

"Sorry, I can't call this "sort[ed] out in the end" unless Glen gets to personally pull the trigger with Darl standing against the wall. And every stockholder in SCO, IBM, Novell, Redhat, and every open source developer, and several others, get to piss on the corpse."

Dude have some perspective please. Darl didn't rape or murder anyone. Heck he might have actually believed that Linux was ripping off SCO's IP. I am glad they lost maybe even overjoyed. Wishing that level of physical harm over what is just a business deal is just wrong.

Re:Fair??? Language, please... (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189789)

Heck [Darl] might have actually believed that Linux was ripping off SCO's IP.

I figure he probably did believe that.

And by the time the discovery rammed home to him that his yes-men should have said no and he didn't have a leg to stand on, it was too late for him to back out. To say "oops" and throw in the towel would have collapsed what was left of SCO - and brought the investors down on him for "breach of fiduciary duty".

This way he can say "I tried!".

That's just the company (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189397)

Can we finally get the criminal case against Darl McBride and the rest of the execs rolling?
Otherwise, they'll just move on to another company, to do mostly the same.

Thank them all... (1)

PalmKiller (174161) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189411)

You forgot to thank the academy, and your mom.

Re:Thank them all... (1)

Filter (6719) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189601)

Whatever dude, this ones behind us.

WW1 (3, Insightful)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189413)

From the article summary is sounds like the software equivalent of winning world war one.

Re:WW1 (1)

daft_one (532587) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189611)

Sooo... What you're saying is, rather than attempt to destroy SCO completely, we should now buy Linux licenses to help them rebuild?

Re:WW1 (3, Insightful)

Nossie (753694) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189843)

humour aside, I think WWII with Microsoft is just round the corner :-\

Now SCO can focus on it's other lawsuit (5, Funny)

realmolo (574068) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189425)

Turns out that SCO owns the copyright on the "Duke Nukem Forever" code.

The case is expected to be settled just before the universe dies a heat-death.

Re:Now SCO can focus on it's other lawsuit (1)

cworley (96911) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189741)

So what did the judge say SCO bought from Novell?

I saw there were summary judgments for and against SCO, but not the judgements. Does SCO have ANY wiggle room left?

Oh, Novell got mentioned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189439)

Cue Novell-MS FUD in 3... 2... 1...

Novell FTW (2, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189447)

FATALITY!

Re:Novell FTW (0, Redundant)

eviloverlordx (99809) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189679)

HEAD SHOT!

Round 1 over; Now for round 2 (4, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189459)

Since this was backed by MS and SUN (who has since sold the stocks that they got for their 20 million investment; the 1 million dollar investment was for the USB work; and now, SUN disavows this), it was never really intended to be won. I think that it was meant to slow down linux and to see what paths were possible for MS. Now MS has a path and they are on it.

Re:Round 1 over; Now for round 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189591)

it was never really intended to be won. I think that it was meant to slow down linux and to see what paths were possible for MS. Now MS has a path and they are on it.

a. explain to me how Linux was "slowed down" by this? What Linux development was put on hold? What retailers refused to sell Linux-based systems? Dell? IBM? Lenovo? Um, no.

b. what "path" does MS have? Vista? Another heaping festering pile of OS shit? Um, I think not. Vista is an unmitigated disaster.

Re:Round 1 over; Now for round 2 (4, Informative)

Dadoo (899435) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189779)

explain to me how Linux was "slowed down" by this?

I used to work for a VAR, and our customers were allowed to choose between several OSes: Windows, AIX, or Linux. Several of our potential customers refused to buy Linux systems and specifically mentioned the lawsuit as the reason. I'd call that slowing it down, a little.

Re:Round 1 over; Now for round 2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189959)

One example, our company (an international US$14 billion company) issued an internal directive after the SCO situation forbdding the use of any FOSS, GPL or similar software without going through specially created red tape (to exec management and legal) which was tantaramount to a ban. That has not yet been lifted, although you might guess the reality is that the many IT groups have flaunted the ruling widely where we could, but it's not possible in situations where specific funding or contracts are required which would name 'offending' products.

Even at my local level in a subsidiary company I can't offer a GPL product to my regional director - I just get the speech which starts with "Freeware isn't legal so we can't expose ourselves" and for a guy who I know to be totally out of touch with pretty much the last 15 years of technology, I know this stance is purely based on that post-SCO directive.

Re:Round 1 over; Now for round 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189617)

Now MS has a path and they are on it.

1. Spend billions on the development of the bloated and unloved Vista
2. Dump a billion dollars down the Xbox 360 hole
3. (It doesn't matter what step 3 is, burn a few billion more. Always results in the same step 4)
4. Profit!!!!!!

Novell (1)

sleekware (1109351) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189463)

Novell... you have redeemed yourselves... maybe.

Quick! (1)

CBob (722532) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189503)

Somebody run to fark and grab a HaHa! guy to post here.

"Free at last" may be an overstatement, but it is a breath of fresh air.

Re:Quick! (2, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#20190017)

Somebody run to fark and grab a HaHa! guy to post here.
HA! (^_^) HA!

I'm posting an overused image
macro on a text-only site!

$699 (4, Funny)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189511)

Who do I make this check for $699 out to now?

Re:$699 (3, Funny)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189625)

That would be me. Email me, and I'll send you an account number.

IBM counterclaims (5, Interesting)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189555)

Since SCO doesn't own UNIX there is still some fun to come as IBM tears them to pieces. What would be really interesting is if IBM could somehow drag MS into this mess but we all know that isn't likely.

Still, a good day!

And Apple Wipes a brow (1)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189569)

Dodged that bullet.

Haha, oopsie! (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189597)

Now the entire house of cards will come down like a stack of dominoes! Checkmate...

Re:Haha, oopsie! (2, Funny)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189907)

At least get the quote right:

If we hit the bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards..... checkmate.

LOL SCO (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189619)

EPIC FAIL!!!

I do believe that this qualifies (1)

Luft08091950 (1101097) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189669)

as a legitimate reason to go out and get falling down drunk! It's party time!!

Re:I do believe that this qualifies (1)

Panoramix (31263) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189837)

Hear hear... Cheers!

Let me be the first to say... (4, Funny)

Seismologist (617169) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189675)

That I am totally surprised by this turn of events! I was completely convinced that SCO had the legitimate claim to the Linux IP. Wow, what do I do with my SCO server coupons now? Oh, wait maybe Novell can still honor them somehow...

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

hasbeard (982620) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189769)

Hold on to them. They might be collector's items some day. Or save them for lighting fires. Or you might try a Google search for more suggestions on what to do with them.

Novell to Open Source Unix? (1)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189677)

I'm not completely following all of this so correct me if I'm wrong.
It sounds like the courts said that Novell owns the Unix copyrights.
If so, could (would?) Novell release the code so no one ever has to
question whether Linux contains parts of Unix.

Ah, well. It's probably a pipe dream.

Re:Novell to Open Source Unix? (2, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189929)

It sounds like the courts said that Novell owns the Unix copyrights.
If so, could (would?) Novell release the code so no one ever has to
question whether Linux contains parts of Unix.


If I understand this correctly:

While Novell owns the copyrights they are still in that pesky exclusive contract for SCO to administer the licensing, for which SCO gets a big cut and for which SCO paid some big bux once upon a time. That contract is the bulk of SCO's remaining assets.

If IBM finishes demolishing SCO and eats the corpse, they'll end up being the other party in that contract. THEN they can get together with Novell and open the source, PD the source, license it to all comers for $1, or whatever. Or just tear it up and free Novell to do whatever they want with the copyrights.

Re:Novell to Open Source Unix? (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 7 years ago | (#20190019)

The ruling is that SCO doesn't own the copyrights. It doesn't establish who does own them, and that will probably never be established. It's too tangled a problem, with things like AT&T tapes sent out many years ago with no copyright notice.

As far as any threat from Novell, SCO brought out something less than 200 lines they claimed were infringing in Linux, and IBM's lawyers promptly attacked those. (Yes, I would have made sure I had a reasonable claim to copyrights before suing somebody else for violating them. SCO apparently doesn't think quite like me.) Linux is perfectly safe from copyright issues.

Not just SCO who lose... (1)

The Mysterious X (903554) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189685)

What about the SCO Unix fee troll on Slashdot? He's out of a job now. We should have a whip round for him or something.

Re:Not just SCO who lose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189817)

That was probably Darl himself.

American courts finally got something right??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189751)

Quick! Somebody measure the temperature in hell!

That'll teach 'em... (4, Funny)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189781)

Don't F*** with the PENGUIN!

Re:That'll teach 'em... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20190005)

Flap?

Standing to bring suit (5, Informative)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189811)

SCO sued IBM in Mar 2003. It hoped to win $5 Billion and then charge Linux users $699 per cpu.

What this decision in this SCO vs. Novell case does is show that SCO does not own Unix copyrights. Therefore, SCO does not have standing to sue.

Standing?

Example: Jane cannot sue Bill for sealing John's tires. Jane does not have standing. (although John has standing to sue Bill for stealing his tires.)

Likewise, SCO does not have standing to sue IBM re: Linux. Novell may have standing. But in any event, Novell waived SCO's right for this suit against IBM.

I'm sure IBM wants to win on the merits. Not just a technicality that SCO does not have standing to sue. But the standing issue is enough to dismiss the SCO vs. IBM (and the world) suit.

On the other hand, IBM has counterclaims against SCO. Including Lanham Act claims. These have teeth. I hope to see SCO get their asses handed to them soon.

Once this fiaSCO is over, I don't know what I'll do. I now read Groklaw as much as I once used to read Slashdot. I hope it is over soon.

Check out their press room (1)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189841)

With great interest I quickly visited their site to see what they had to say about this.

Their pressroom:
http://www.sco.com/company/news/ [sco.com]

The latest story is from October 2006, entitled "What I Like About SCO". I guess the last 10 months have been pretty quiet. That, or they canned the poor schmuck who was updating the page to try and pay for their failing legal maneuvers.

Grok (1)

GPL Apostate (1138631) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189863)

Does this mean PJ goes back to being a law clerk, and we get the word 'grok' back as what Heinlein meant it to be used for?

Re:Grok (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#20190011)

No other topics are covered and Grok is exactly what is meant in the Name Grok Law

Speak for yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189885)

"The entire FOSS community thanks you for your skill and all the hard work"

No it doesn't. Some of us thought this whole thing was hilarious, and are dissapointed that this could mean the end of a lot of good laughs.

US Court system still sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20189915)

I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

I'll take the dare: They take forever, they're incredibly expensive, but they sometimes deliver the right result? You wouldn't accept that from anyone else.

Woohoo! (3, Funny)

microbee (682094) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189961)

Time to pick up some really cheap SCO stock!

Utter destruction (5, Informative)

Panoramix (31263) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189981)

"To our utter destruction," remember that one? That was how far dear Ralphie Yarro was ready to go, to "take on" Linux. So nice to see his plan working out just right.

Goodness (3, Insightful)

Silent sound (960334) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189987)

I still remember the morning I looked on slashdot and saw the original announcement that SCO was filing copyright claims against Linux. It's amazing how long how this has been going on, and how much has changed since then (and not just what's changed in SCO's ever-shifting claims!-- that first morning I seem to remember most of the discussion was speculation on what exactly it was that SCO claimed was stolen from them. Years later and I still don't think we ever really found out). The start of this case was so long ago it was like an entirely different world. This case has been going on longer than the Iraq war. This started so long ago that at the time Slashdot was still known for hating Microsoft rather than salivating over the XBox.

This in mind, while it's wonderful that the system showed SCO wrong in the end, I have trouble seeing this really as a loss for SCO. They managed to continue their claims for a good five years-- a significant fraction of the lifetime of Linux itself-- without ever showing a whit of substance to those claims. SCO will die now that their case is lost, but they might have died years sooner and possibly poorer if not for this lawsuit gambit keeping them on life support. Microsoft managed to fund this through weird proxies without one single bit of consequences for themselves, and unlike SCO they will live on.

Linux has now weathered its first major court challenge, but the media coverage of Linux's successes in this case has never quite matched up in amount to the withering and credulous coverage of the baseless PR accusations of Darl McBride's heyday-- though we won in the end, the case may well be a net PR loss. Meanwhile, I don't think Linux is as viable as a movement as it was at the beginning of this case. This for all I know has nothing to do with the SCO case itself, but it seems like five years ago people still thought Linux on the desktop had a future, now I don't hear anyone talking about that anymore. Five years ago linux seemed to be going places, whereas now Linux's situation seems largely static, little progressed from where it was five years ago. Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I don't really feel good right now thinking about how this entire debacle has gone.

I guess my main response is kudos to PJ of Groklaw for her amazing and tireless journalism throughout this case. I'd be curious to ask PJ what her plans are as to what she's going to do next. In the short term maybe she should write a book about this entire thing.

Conversion (5, Informative)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 7 years ago | (#20189997)

Conversion is a legal word for Stealing.

Judge Kimball writes...

The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only indidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.


So, when Microsoft and Sun gave SCO millions of dollars for a "unix license" back in 2003, according to SCO's APA agreement with Novell, SCO was supposed to pass 100% of that money to Novell, who would then pass back 5% of it as SCO's administrative fee. SCO kept it all. Just as Microsoft and Sun intended. After all, that money was intended to finance SCO's litigation. SCO now owes Novell more than SCO is worth.

Aside: Sun did not need a Unix license from SCO. It already had a license from AT&T. Microsoft surely did not need a Unix license from SCO back in 2003. For what? Oh, yeah, to help finance a baseless lawsuit against a potential competitor (IBM and Linux).

I love the smell of SCO bankruptcy on a Monday morning.

The judge used the word "conversion". Does this mean that it may become a criminal matter?

Still reading the 102 page decision by Judge Kimball.

To quote Michael Ironside (1)

6031769 (829845) | more than 7 years ago | (#20190013)

... or at least his character (Richter) in Total Recall:

It's about Goddamn time!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>