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!

Judge Kimball Strikes SCO's Jury Trial Demand

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the down-on-their-luck dept.

The Courts 149

watchingeyes writes "In a ruling on various pre-trial motions in limine and other, similar motions in the SCO vs Novell case, Judge Kimball today issued a ruling striking SCO's demand for a jury trial, ruling that Novell's claims seek equitable, and not legal relief. In addition, he denied SCO's request for entry of judgment that would allow them to appeal his ruling on the UNIX copyrights and Novell's waiver rights, ruling that if SCO wants to appeal any of his rulings, it can do them all at once after trial. He also granted Novell's request to voluntarily dismiss its own breach of contract claim, denied SCO's motion to exclude press coverage and evidence from the IBM case, granted Novell's motion in limine preventing SCO from contesting his summary judgment ruling at trial, granted Novell's second motion in limine preventing SCO from arguing that SCOsource licenses that license SVRx only incidentally aren't SVRx licenses, denied another SCO motion in limine which improperly asked the Judge to issue rulings on contractual issues and denied Novell's final motion in limine which sought to prevent SCO from contesting Novell's apportionment of royalties analysis. Looks like SCO will be facing a trial in-front of a judge which has already ruled against them numerous times."

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

Interpretation (3, Insightful)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 7 years ago | (#20519959)

Interpretation: SCO screwed themselves. If one has been following the case all along, this should be no surprise.

Re:Interpretation (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520009)

Shorter interpretation: M-M-M-M-Monster Kill!!

Re:Interpretation (1)

UnixUnix (1149659) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520187)

Regardless, it is the attorneys' job to bring Motions, even of marginal merit, in the course of "vigorously representing their clients", or a semblance thereof. And it is the Judge's job to dispose of them. I remember back when SCO provided a decent PC-based version of UNIX... handy for introducing the latter to people, training them...and converting some into lifelong enemies of the Evil Empire, ha! On the other hand, it is not adopters of Novell Linux but rather non-converts currently using the Evil Empire Operating Systems who provide me with a seemingly endless stream of service calls, cries for help, and the occasional scream of anguish. Ah, MS. Thank you, thank you.

Re:Interpretation (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20521193)

I remember back when SCO provided a decent PC-based version of UNIX
It was DIFFERENT SCO.
It was a company from Santa Cruz, California called "The Santa Cruz Operation". When their Unix business started to go downhill they sold it to Caldera - a company from Utah. The same Caldera that purchased DR-DOS and won Millions in a lawsuit from Microsoft.

After selling Unix business to Caldera The Santa Cruz Operation renamed itself to Tarantella and later on Caldera renamed itself to The SCO Group, Inc. and started suing its customers, former customers, business partners and former business partners.

... and now The SCO Group, Inc. is just about to become caldera again. By the time Novel and IBM lawyers are finished with them ... they will become a caldera. This time without capital C. Just a big smoking caldera at the place where SCO has its headquarters.

Re:Interpretation (5, Informative)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522521)

I remember back when SCO provided a decent PC-based version of UNIX..

You're probably thinking of the Santa Cruz Operation, not these bozos at Caldera doing business as The SCO Group, after they bought Santa Cruz's Unix business and Santa Cruz changed its name to Tarantella.

SCOG (The SCO Group aka Caldera) has deliberately blurred this distinction all along.

NO! FUCK! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520195)

This is BAD! Not "haha." My stock portfolio is RUINED! I invested my life savings in SCOX stock hoping it would fly after they won the suit against IBM. I even looked at the Stochastic graph and the candles! I was SURE! This REALLY hurts the case! FUCK! I think my stock is already dropping. And my broker won't give stock certificates! :(

Why'd you make me think of HK-47? (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521805)

Conjecture: SCO was denied the ability to appeal part of the ruling because they'll get to appeal the whole thing soon.
Fact: The meatbags deserve it.

Poor, Poor SCO (5, Funny)

Scottoest (1081663) | more than 7 years ago | (#20519983)

SCO is an exceptional software company, and I personally feel their legal claims are on solid... ...hahahahahahaha...

Damnit, I can never get through that sentence without laughing.

Hang em out to dry, Your Honor.

- Scott

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520157)

I'm not one to defend SCO or anything, but is this fair? Don't they have a right to a jury trial? Can they get a fair hearing of their appeals in front of the same judge that made the rulings that they are appealing? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see SCO crushed but I'd like to see it done fairly.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (3, Insightful)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520383)

Don't they have a right to a jury trial?

Sure they do. They just need a case first.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (5, Informative)

qcomp (694740) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520395)

IANAL, but as explained in Novell's motion [groklaw.net] (and in the ruling, I suppose), the right to jury trial exists only for certain types of legal proceedings, in particular, it does not apply if it's about contracts (presumably, because it would be too difficult for laypersons to understand the intricacies involved) and if the damages asked for are equitable only (not, e.g. punitive). And Novell did drop one of its claims (and SCO moved unsuccessfully not to allow it to) to make the damages at issue fit the bill.
So I do think SCO are treated fairly here.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (2, Interesting)

dmartin (235398) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521421)

This is something that has confused me before, so I will ask it again in this context. The seventh amendment states

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
I am also aware that corporations are treated much like persons, and the amount in question certainly comes to more than $20, so why are they not guaranteed the right to trial by jury if they request it?

The answers I got when I asked about this last time (it was about people) was that someone could request a jury trial for civil matters, but they would have to pay huge court expenses. One argument may by that a corporation does not have the same rights as a person. After all, the USSC has ruled that "free speechquot; and commerical speech are quite different, and commercial speech is the only type of speech a corporation is likely to be involved in. Or is it that the costs to SCO would be too high? Or is it a technical definition of the words common law that I am missing?

Any insight would be appreciated!

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521651)

I am also aware that corporations are treated much like persons, and the amount in question certainly comes to more than $20, so why are they not guaranteed the right to trial by jury if they request it?

They are.

Or is it a technical definition of the words common law that I am missing?

That's the problem. There were basically two systems of jurisprudence in the English/American common-law system, law and equity. They used to be two parallel systems, with their own tribunals ("judges" handled cases at law, "chancellors" handled cases at equity), but they were sort-of-merged in both countries a while ago.

In the US judges will hear both kinds of cases, and the procedural rules are the same, but claims for certain kinds of relief (like injunctions, or specific performance)are still considered equitable, so the Constitutional right to jury trial doesn't kick in.

You can probably find a more coherent explanation than the above if you check wikipedia for an entry on equity.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (0, Troll)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522481)

RTFA and quit trying to be an armchair lawyer. The reasoning is laid out quite clearly in the ruling. Numerous appelate Judge's have upheld the exact type of ruling that Kimball issued here in far less deserving circumstances.

nuff said.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1, Interesting)

dmartin (235398) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522657)

I did. It mentioned common law, and I checked some wikipedia articles on it. Common law is when the rulings of a judge are essentially codified into law. I was under the (mistaken) understanding that most of the US system was under common law. I was not trying to be a lawyer, or trying to give a legal opinion. I was expressing the fact that I did not understand the law, pointed out where the possible problems were (e.g. the definition of common law) and asked for any help in what the article meant.

    It is not your job to educate me on such matters, but your rudeness is uncalled for. The first reply I got gave me an area to look into to discern the difference and help me in my understanding of the law. I can understand your response if my post had gone out and claimed that the judge was completely wrong in his ruling and that a cursory reading of the constitution told you the judge was an idiot. However, what I said was I did not understand why the seventh amendent did not apply, and asked for help with my lack of understanding.

    If you don't want to help people understand, and they are not propogating misinformation, why the need to be so rude?

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

Kazymyr (190114) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520399)

Don't they have a right to a jury trial?

Why, did they murder someone?

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (3, Funny)

Pad-Lok (831143) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520495)

Why, did they murder someone?

Yea, themselves.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

FST777 (913657) | more than 7 years ago | (#20523309)

Plus probably a broker or two...

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

allthingscode (642676) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520421)

I think they would have been allowed to have a jury trial had SCO still had something to argue about. But after all the arguments and rulings, it's now just about how much money SCO owns Novell. And Novell is just asking the judge to decide that. It's part of a judge's job to decide if there are legal matters that should go in front of a jury, and there's nothing left here.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (3, Informative)

jobsagoodun (669748) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520705)

Depends

From what I can work out, they only need a jury to decide if there is a dispute about the "facts" or if Novell were asking for punative damages. It seems that for the claims made, no facts are disputed, and Novell dropped their claim for special damages. All that left are decisions about the Law, and Judge Kimball gets to do that without a jury.

The facts of the case are the contracts etc. Both sides agree on the text of those, but the interpretation is a legal one and thats down to JK.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (3, Funny)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521515)

the interpretation is a legal one and thats down to JK.
 
Rowling?
 
SCO Wizard School: Ok children, watch closely as I wave my magic wand and *poof* watch all of that free cash roll in!
 
  Oops.Misfire...

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522517)

BZZT, wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with whether factual issues remain or not. There are still facts in dispute regarding the apportionment of royalties, with both sides providing opposing expert reports. Judge Kimball specificlly ruled in the summary judgment rulings that this is a question of fact, not law. The reason this is not going to a jury is that the claims seek equitable relief.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (3, Informative)

jbengt (874751) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522767)

"hey only need a jury to decide if there is a dispute about the "facts" or if Novell were asking for punative damages"
Almost,
They could insist on a jury if it were a matter of law, like punitive damages, but it is only matter of equity, that is, make me whole by payin what you owe. Novell dropped the punitive damages so they could avoid a jury. There still is a matter of fact in dispute, that is, how much of the Sun and MS licenses were SysV, for which SCOX must remit to Novell in full in return for a 5% fee, and how much were for other things, for which SCOX should not owe anything to Novell.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

Socguy (933973) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520915)

I admire your commitment to the principal of justice, but don't worry, SCO's highly paid and talented team of lawyers will see to it that every legal avenue available will be exploited.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522449)

As is clearly explained in the article on Groklaw, numerous articles before it, Novell's briefs which are also linked in the article and the very ruling the article is about, if your claim is equitable in relief (ie. not seeking damages, but instead merely seeking the return of ill-gotten or wrongfully withheld gains), or is also merely seeking construction of a contract, and requires no fact-finding, as is clearly the case here, the defendant has absolutely no right to a trial by jury whatsoever.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

rssrss (686344) | more than 7 years ago | (#20523121)

"... is this fair? Don't they have a right to a jury trial?"

Amendment 7 to the US constitution (the first 10 Amendments are known as "The Bill of Rights") provides:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, ..."

The key words in this clause are "Suits at common law". This refers to those civil legal matters that could be heard in the courts of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Amendment in 1791 under the Common Law of England, which had been retained by those courts despite the adoption of the Constitution.

The most important limitation on suits at common law is that they are, for the most part, limited to suits to obtain money damages as a redress of the wrong done. Suits to obtain court orders, such as injunctions, were not recognized under the Common Law of England, although they could be brought in the Court of Chancery (in England, the Lord Chancellor's court).

What the article above says is that: "Judge Kimball today issued a ruling striking SCO's demand for a jury trial, ruling that Novell's claims seek equitable, and not legal relief."

This is legal jargon for saying that the SCO claims are requests for a judicial order and, in 1791, would have had to have been brought in the Court of Chancery, and therefore they are not a "Suit at common law, and do not elicit the right to trial by jury.

"Can they get a fair hearing of their appeals in front of the same judge that made the rulings that they are appealing?"

The judge will not review his own rulings on appeal. They will be reviewed first by a panel of 3 judges from the United States Court of Appeals for that area. However, SCO may not appeal any rulings until after the whole trial is completed. That is the normal way things are done. In extraordinary cases that schedule can be altered. This is not one of them. SCO asked for a change in the normal schedule and according to the article above the Judge said:

"If SCO wants to appeal any of his rulings, it can do them all at once after trial."

This is absolutely the usual practice in courts in the United States.

SCO is being crushed fairly.

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#20523435)

Thanks for explaining it so clearly. One question, if "suits at common law" means civil cases, where is our right to a jury trial in criminal cases secured? Is it?

When is someone going to jail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520197)

From the beginning this has seemed to me to be a 'pump and dump'.

Does anyone know if the SEC is watching this?

Re:Poor, Poor SCO (1)

christurkel (520220) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520217)

It gets even better. The best outcome they can hope for is not to owe Novell $$$. Ah, being on the defensive must suck.

No! (3, Funny)

Skapare (16644) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520241)

Hang em out to dry, Your Honor.

Isn't there some EPA regulation against this?

Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20519985)

I hope that after all of this legal nonsense is done, that Novell does the right thing and frees the SVRx source code. Ideally, they'd one-up Sun, and release it under a BSD-style license. That way, code can be incorporated into the *BSD projects, as well as Linux. It wouldn't just be a donation of technology to the open source community, but it would also be an excellent donation to computer historians. SVRx has played a very important role in the history of UNIX, and to make that history freely available to all would be a very regal thing for Novell to do.

Re:Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520049)

Isn't Solaris a SVR4?

-uso.

Re:Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520131)

Yes, Solaris was derived from SVR4. But that was between 1988 and 1990! There was a lot of development to both the Solaris and UnixWare branches during the past 18 years. So it's quite likely that what Sun released as OpenSolaris is radically different than what Novell could potentially release.

Re:Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (-1, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520333)

Do you really want something as archaic as that? What next a box with 256 bytes of ram and toggles on the front so you can enter code manually bit by bit?

SCO has been making a lot of noise about how they still own any code they've developed since ... but who cares? Its not like they can even sell THAT once judgment is made against them, because they will have lost their license.

They're effectively out of business.

Re:Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520525)

UnixWare is hardly archaic. It brings to the PC many of the enterprise-grade features that AIX, HP-UX, and Tru64 offer. These are features that even Linux still doesn't support.

You'd be surprised at the prominent role that UnixWare plays in many of the largest organizations in the world. It powers the POS systems of a number of businesses, some of which you've probably visited in the past week. So while Linux gets all of the media hype, it's back-end, enterprise-grade systems like UnixWare, HP-UX and AIX that do much of the real work.

Re:Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (0, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520619)

"It powers the POS systems of a number of businesses, some of which you've probably visited in the past week"

I've been boycotting McDonalds since before the start of this millenium, when the WERE running their POS on SCO.

If you can point us all to a list of SCO customers, I'm sure we'd all like to take a shot at making a pitch to switch them to something - anything - else. SCO's loss is our gain.

Re:Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20521739)

I've been boycotting McDonalds since before the start of this millenium, when the WERE running their POS on SCO.


If you want to boycott McDonalds do so for the right reason, such as their foods are killing people. They put soy and other allergens (such as glutens, etc.) in their patties without warning customers. I wouldn't boycott them because they are running a system they purchased from old SCO, which although was indirectly spawned from Microsoft, was not evil like new SCO is.

Re:Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520567)

What next a box with 256 bytes of ram and toggles on the front so you can enter code manually bit by bit?

You mean an Altair? Oh hell yes I'd like one. I tried to buy one back in the day, but couldn't get enough cash together.

Re:Will Novell free the SVRx source code? (2, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520765)

I wanted the heathkit with the 4004.

Instead, ended up years a few later with some CoCos.

SCO - the Monty Python Black Knight (4, Funny)

tjstork (137384) | more than 7 years ago | (#20519987)

"Aye, you chopped my legal arm off! No big deal! Have at you!"

"Aye, you chopped my legal legs off! No big deal! I can still hop! Have at you!"

english not good enough (2, Insightful)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 7 years ago | (#20519993)

since english is not my primary language, can someone help me with all the legalese ?

is this another nail on SCO's coffin, or several of them at the same time ?

Re:english not good enough (1)

rah1420 (234198) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520037)

since english is not my primary language

Heh. I don't think that even most people whose primary language is English could understand that. Especially since most legalese is Latin.

I believe this is several nails, however.

Re:english not good enough (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520101)

In limine means 'at the threshold'. It's a type of motion that's filed right before a trial is set to start, usually to have the judge rule on which evidence to include or exclude.

For those not understanding what's going on: Kimball ruled that the copyrights on UNIX System V don't belong to SCO, they belong to Novell, because the Asset Purchase Agreement, signed between Novell and Santa Cruz never transferred the copyrights, just the business. Santa Cruz was to collect UNIX royalties for SVR5 for Novell and keep a portion for themselves in exchange. The SCO Group stopped paying Novell for UNIX sometime ago, and Novell wants its money.

Now if SCO doesn't own the UNIX copyrights, then how can they sue IBM? The answer is, they can't, especially since Novell told them they can't. Now SCO wants to appeal this decision before the Novell trial is over so they can still sue IBM. And they want any evidence from the IBM trial to not be used in the Novell trial (they filed a similar motion in the IBM trial). And Kimball said "No, and no."

In short: SCO is screwed. After Novell is through with them, if anything is left, IBM will launch its Lanham Act claims against SCO and there will be a smokin' hole in Linden, Utah, where SCO HQ used to be.

Re:english not good enough (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520175)

In short: SCO is screwed. After Novell is through with them, if anything is left, IBM will launch its Lanham Act claims against SCO and there will be a smokin' hole in Linden, Utah, where SCO HQ used to be.

I want to see them go and pierce the "corporate veil" and go after the source of the money SCO used to bankroll the lawsui^H^H^H^H^H^Hscam... I want to know who the real "PIPE Fairy" is... we all suspect Microsoft, but I want to see hard evidence that can be used against Microsoft.

Re:english not good enough (2, Informative)

JPriest (547211) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520675)

Even if not the "off books" shenanigans it could be said that MSFT gave SCO a great deal of money for their own UNIX license (UNIX services for windows etc.). Now it may be ruled that Novell is entitled to all of that money, not that collecting it from a bankrupt company (SCO) will be easy.

Re:english not good enough (2, Informative)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520407)

Santa Cruz was to collect UNIX royalties for SVR5 for Novell and keep a portion for themselves

My understanding as that they were to collect UNIX royalties for Novell and hand them all to Novell *then* Novell would pay them their cut. (Which of course they never did, so Novell is demanding *all* royalties ever collected by SCO.)

Re:english not good enough (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520931)

No, no. See, the thing is when Caldera first aquired the Unix business from Santa Cruz, they were paying royalties to Novell. SCO is try to claim that they thought the APA transferred the copyrights, but if it did, then why were they paying royalties to Novell?

Re:english not good enough (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522621)

SCO AND NOVELL cited close to 10 cases where, in-fact, copyrights had transferred to a party that continued to pay royalties. In-fact, this is how record labels generally function if I'm not mistaken. However, when a contract like the APA specifically states that all copyrights are excluded, then this is clearly not the case.

Re:english not good enough (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522603)

That's what the contract SAID. In-fact, to make things simpler, SCO would just pay themselves the money on behalf of Novell, which Novell did not have a problem with, as long as the money was properly accounted for. Actually saved Novell money that way, cause the job of apportionment was left to SCO.

Re:english not good enough (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520593)

"Now if SCO doesn't own the UNIX copyrights, then how can they sue IBM?"

Actually they can, and might, still sue IBM over breach of contract. They have waffled back and forth in the IBM case over whether they were suing about copyright or contract issues. Lately they've been saying that the IBM suit is about contracts. Unfortunately most of the breach of contract they're alleging have to do with copyrights and trade secrets, which will be much harder to sue over if Novell owns the copyrights.

Don't be suprised if they ask for a delay in the IBM case while they appeal the Novell case.

Re:english not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20521137)

Except another part of the ruling was that Novell does indeed have the right to require SCO to waive any and all provisions of those contracts, and Novell did in fact do so. It would seem little would be left of the IBM case as well, given that.

Re:english not good enough (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522661)

http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/6_12 _03_n-scoandibm.pdf [novell.com]

http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_1 0_03_n-sco_ibm.pdf [novell.com]

Judge Kimball has ruled these waivers were valid. In-fact, SCO's contract claims were hurt MORE by the ruling than the copyright ones, cause SCO can still claim infringement over code they own (although they haven't presented any).

Why Novell didn't transfer the copyrights (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521159)

For those not understanding what's going on: Kimball ruled that the copyrights on UNIX System V don't belong to SCO, they belong to Novell, because the Asset Purchase Agreement, signed between Novell and Santa Cruz never transferred the copyrights, just the business.

Right. That issue was examined during discovery. SCO wanted the copyrights transferred when they bought the UNIX business, but Novell insisted on full payment before transferring the copyrights. SCO couldn't come up with the up-front cash, so the final deal called for royalty payments over time with Novell holding the copyrights. That's a common way to structure intellectual property deals, especially if there's any possibility that the buyer might go bankrupt.

This didn't happen by accident. Novell was protecting themselves against the possibility that SCO might not pay in full and might go bankrupt. Which, right now, looks like the likely outcome.

Re:english not good enough (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520047)

The summary read like the judge had crossed an AK-47 with a common nailgun and was shooting at SCO's coffin.

Talk about pwned.

Re:english not good enough (4, Insightful)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520057)

America may have many things wrong with it, but in this case (pun intended) it's very nice to see a sitting judge wield a powered nail-gun with such accuracy.

Re:english not good enough (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521197)

You're joking, I hope?

SCO has been allowed to cause uncountable damage to Linux and an equivalent benefit to Microsoft for the past three years.

That's thirty billion dollars of income for Microsoft, protected from competition in part by FUD generated by SCO. They have NEVER had a credible case, but they have been allowed to slander the closest competition Microsoft has for three years. Only now does it look like they'll be forced to stop the slander.

And their punishment? We don't know yet, but it looks like it'll be no worse than shutting down the company and allowing the perpetrators to take their ill-gotten gains elsewhere.

You call that justice? I call it a travesty.

Re:english not good enough (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522687)

Oh give me a break. Customers stopped caring about SCO years ago, and Microsoft's sales have gone up since. Saying that all of Microsoft's revenue is attributable to SCO, every last dime, is downright ridiculous. I know this is Slashdot, but quit being a fanboy idiot. IBM and Novell are big boys, they can defend themselves. SCO's case against Linux itself imploded long ago.

Re:english not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20521929)

> America may have many things wrong with it,...

Please name for us a country that doesn't. Shall we conduct a poll of their citizens to see if they agree with you?

And, how would you compare the many things "wrong" with America with the many things "right" with America?

Re:english not good enough (1)

cccM.I.A (1153627) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520077)

No, this is final polish to the coffin before transporting it to the burial ground. The nails are of course all hammered in at this stage.

Re:english not good enough (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520147)

Try here [justfuckinggoogleit.com] for an explanation.
 

Re:english not good enough (5, Informative)

Aim Here (765712) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520179)

"motion in limine" == a motion before a trial regarding what evidence is allowed to be shown to a jury

"equitable relief" == court-ordered restitution of property, as opposed to fines and punishments. Suing someone to enforce a contract they signed or pay back money they owe you is equitable relief, as opposed to suing them for punitive damages, which is a legal matter. The relevancy here is that equitable matters don't warrant a jury trial, whereas legal ones do.

"waiver" == A formal way of stating that you, or someone acting on your behalf, will not enforce one of your (or their) rights. In this case, Novell issued a waiver on behalf of SCO over whatever it was that SCO was suing IBM over (Normally you can't waive someone else's rights like this, but SCO signed a contract that allowed Novell to do just that)

"dismiss" == to throw a court claim out and not hear it.

"summary judgment" == A judgement on a claim instead of an actual trial, because there was no disputed evidence to hear, so the Judge could rule on it immediately.

It's bad for SCO, this ruling; it doesn't get to bamboozle a fresh naïve jury but instead gets one of the two judges they've been irritating for the past 4 years, so that's it's next-to-last hope for a favourable ruling out the window. The only ray of hope is that it might be able to use some new evidence out to show that whatever Microsoft and Sun paid for wasn't the stuff that Novell was recently ruled to have owned. But it'll be fighting against it's own public statements and anything it's said in other courtrooms, so it's chances are slimmer than slim...

Re:english not good enough (1)

optimus2861 (760680) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520853)

It's bad for SCO, this ruling; it doesn't get to bamboozle a fresh naïve jury but instead gets one of the two judges they've been irritating for the past 4 years, so that's it's next-to-last hope for a favourable ruling out the window.

Worse than that; remember that Judge Kimball is presiding over both the SCO/Novell and SCO/IBM cases. So SCO can't even try to pull a, "This is what the Novell judge really meant," bamboozle on the IBM judge, as they've tried to do with the Autozone and Red Hat cases in the past.

The truth begun 43 years ago. There are liars now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520921)

UNIX = UNICS originally developed in 1969 by a group of AT&T employees at Bell Labs including Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and Douglas McIlroy.

MULTICS was started in 1964 and originally was a cooperative project led by MIT, along with General Electric and Bell Labs. Bell Labs dropped out in 1969 after Multics was not a very successful one.

IMHO, Bell Labs was the devil that ruined the MULTICS cooperative project and did put the hackers Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and Douglas McIlroy to create his own UNICS project copied from the MULTICS cooperative project. They had stolen the efforts from them.

IMHO, MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and General Electric were the victims and the precursors of the current OS technology. The University California is not the only university that created the OS, before was MIT.

MULTICS = Multiplexed Information and Computing Service
UNICS = Uniplexed Information and Computing System = UNIX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_V [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics [wikipedia.org]

Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and Douglas McIlroy wrote UNICS but they had not rights to put their (c) symbols of copyrights. Only AT&T Bell Labs was the unique owner of unexistent copyrights until 197x's Act Law in U.S.

Re:english not good enough (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520387)

It means they're just about ready to lower the coffin into the grave. SCO was hoping to have a jury they can confuse, but now the case will be tried in front of a judge who knows their tricks and can't be fooled.

Re:english not good enough (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522559)

I think the coffin is already nailed shut. This is throwing dirt on it.

Re:english not good enough (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522587)

Let's put it this way. Novell and SCO collectively filed 8 pre-trial motions. Novell won 7, SCO won 1. These are for a trial that has already largely been decided against SCO at the summary judgment stage. SCO's only hope was to dazzle a jury into believing their claims, and that is gone now. In other words, they are downright fucked.

IBM is still pushing Kimball for rulings on their summary judgment motions. I expect those before the start of trial, so that IBM can be vindicated and Novell can finish SCO off, almost completely wiping these 2 cases off the docket.

After that, it will go to appeals (although SCO will have to post a bond when they lose, so this might not even happen), which will be MUCH less friendly towards SCO's...... unique legal theories.

Re:english not good enough (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#20523303)

This is more like a coffin lid made of lead :)

Waste, nothing but waste (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520159)

Does this epitomize the drag lawyers and the legal system place on the US? This and the overly complex tax system have no redeeming value in the US economy or am I missing something?

"Drag lawyers?" (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520651)

A momentary image of a cross-dressed Judge Kimball flashed through my right brain before my left brain could finish parsing the sentence.

Re:Waste, nothing but waste (1, Interesting)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520773)

i wouldnt' worry too much about all of this. After the USD collapses and sinks to the bottom of the sea this whole game by SCO, the RIAA, and all these other companies that depend on "intellectual capital" will evaporate. The USD closed under 80 today, bernanke will not cut rates (but I hope he will just to sink the dollar even further).. inflation that the u.s. consumer has never seen is on the horizon and cannot be stopped. The games these CEO's want to play are over with.. it was fun, but time has run out.

Well ... your alternative is ? (1, Interesting)

golodh (893453) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520801)

For better or worse, the US judiciary is often the last defender of

(a) the constitution (just think of the PATRIOT act and other legal shenennigans by the current administration)

(b) individual freedom (versus the government)

(c) individual rights (versus the government and any other body that wields large amounts of power such as large corporations).

And yes, a large amount of time, care, money and attention is needed to adjudicate the conflicting claims and counterclaims. However I personally believe that it's safe to say that an impartial legal system is by and large one of the few remaining moral high grounds that the US can show to the world. Not that it's always perfect of course: the more money you can throw at it, the better your interests will be protected. But a certain minimum protection is guaranteed.

Unfortunately it is all but impossible to say what part of the care and the proceedings is "waste", and what part is "essential safeguard". And yes ... a particularly clever lawyer will know ways of "gaming the system" by complicating a case, raising far-out but still undeniable issues, and can usually secure long delays if nothing else. This costs a heap of money of course, which is why you don't usually see this sort of thing in disputes involving ordinary citizens or small corporations.

But having said this, those who feel the urge to wave their "Libertarian" flag and slag judicial procedures should realise that this regulated form of dispute resolution is what allows a modern society to exist, and that anarchy and "afghanistan-style" dispute resolution are just around the corner. This is the country that struggled its way out of "Wild West" style justice to where it is now. Remove or curtail judicial care and you'll be back there before you know.

*Yawn* (1)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520163)

SCO v. IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Linux users worldwide, etc got old years ago. It's all about Microsoft v. The Civilized World now! Get with the times Slashdot!

One-armed man (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520171)

SCO should have blamed everything on a one-armed man; Kimball would have been much more sympathetic.

Better yet, blame it on Rove (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520829)

Then Slashdot would be on SCO's side...

Yeah, mod me down. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

If this post pisses you off, I'm talking to YOU and your BDS-addled "brain", you tard.

Re:One-armed man (1)

ntrfug (147745) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522289)

I thought it was *Kimball* who blamed the one-armed man?

Re:One-armed man (2, Insightful)

Eponymous Bastard (1143615) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522505)

I doubt it. He's probably been hearing that joke all his life. Bringin it up again is not going to get you on his good side.

Looks like SCO will be facing a trial in-front... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520191)

... of a judge which has already ruled against them numerous times."

The problem is not, that the judge already ruled against them. That is only cleanup for the proper parts.

And there lies the problem -- which proper parts?

On the other hand, I am sure, that SCO will turn a ruling like "SCO was right to ask for the pencil, they left back at the last meeting" into "SCO won their case"...

cb

Re:Looks like SCO will be facing a trial in-front. (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522733)

Instead of trying to sound intelligent, you could read Judge Kimball's ruling which lists the 3 remaining issues for trial and why he issued this ruling :-) Not like this is an issue that requires Sherlock Holmes to figure it out, it's right there in a PDF on a free website.

and in other weekend news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520287)

Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Maybe the most important remaining issue (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520307)

One question that will be settled at trial is apportionment. That is, how much of the money paid by Microsoft and Sun belongs to Novell. The judge has clearly said that some of the money belongs to Novell. The best SCO can do is argue that it is a very small amount.

SCO's problem is that they basically told the SEC that all the money belongs to Novell. SCO tried to have that evidence excluded but failed.

It is likely that Novell will get more than 50% of the money. The judge will grant a constructive trust. SCO will be immediately bankrupt. The trustee will march in and kick the current SCO management out. The trustee will agree to anything the creditors (IBM, Novell mainly) tell him. The cases will end immediately.

AllParadox, a retired lawyer who has been following the case closely, predicts that Judge K. will issue an order sanctioning SCO's lawyers. Some of them could end up being disbarred. It will serve them right. This case has been an incredible misuse of the courts.

Re:Maybe the most important remaining issue (4, Insightful)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520453)

AllParadox, a retired lawyer who has been following the case closely, predicts that Judge K. will issue an order sanctioning SCO's lawyers. Some of them could end up being disbarred . It will serve them right. This case has been an incredible misuse of the courts.

One can only hope, but this is very unlikely. The legal system is loathe to expel their own - when judge Susan Chrzanowski was caught having an affair with a defense attorney who was a) pleading cases before her b) given a virtual monopoly on court-appointed indigent cases, c) murdered his wife the day after having yet another sexual rendezvous with the judge and the judge was caught in several lies regarding her involvement her only punishment was 17 months paid "vacation" (they called it a suspension, but she collected around $200,000 and full benefits), six months unpaid leave, and instead of being disbarred was allowed to return to the bench. Retired state justice Charles Levin who oversaw Susan's review originally ruled that she had done nothing whatsoever that merited punishment.

If cases like this don't merit any punishment from the ranks of the legal system, why would a couple of lawyers playing hardball in a case that most americans don't understand or care about be prohibited from paying more dues to the various lawyer associations?

Here's an example (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520637)

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1506245/ [wral.com]

The guy who prosecuted the Duke lacrosse players. Disbarred.

The SCO cases have consumed years of the court's time and have cost the other parties many millions of dollars in lawyer's fees. Their cases have zero merit. The lawyers should have know the cases had no merit. My WAG is that they will get smacked real hard.

My other WAG is that Darl gets nailed for Lanham act violations.

Re:Here's an example (3, Insightful)

keraneuology (760918) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520863)

Yes, Nifong was disbarred, but this is a rarity and involved a case that was front-page news across the country for months. What % of the national population knew about the Duke lacrosse incident? What % have ever heard of SCO? What % know that SCO, IBM and Novell are all in the same industry? If Nifong hadn't been disbarred then the profession would have taken a major black eye. If the attorneys involved in this case aren't disbarred, who - outside of /. readers - would know or even care?

I have my own personal feelings here - not only should the lawyers be kicked out but their masters should be personally punished. If your dog bites somebody on your command then you'd better believe that you'll face the music. If you are a corporate exec who issues the sic 'em command to your lawyer then you had better be ready to face the music. Personally.

But my personal thoughts are irrelevant, and these lawyers are likely to get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. In fact, in Michigan (and probably many other states) a lawyer is held responsible if he doesn't pursue a case to the utmost, and bringing about frivolous charges are just part of the game. How many cases are filed alleging racial discrimination where there is clearly zero evidence, let alone plausibility that it ever happened? Those lawyers are never punished for making false allegations, if the charges don't stick then all of the lawyers and judges say "oh well, no harm in trying".

Re:Here's an example (1)

wap911 (637820) | more than 7 years ago | (#20523253)

The lawyers will survive and so will management. Go read LamLaw [http://www.lamlaw.com] about "the B word". If you state "we own it".....then you are liable if you do not. Use "up information and [B]elief" then you can believe in anything whether or not it is true....go free. See it is just how you make your "word salad". Put Bleu Cheese dressing on it and no one eats, do the super creamy Ranch and they eat it up.

Re:Here's an example (1, Flamebait)

udippel (562132) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521703)

The SCO cases have consumed years of the court's time and have cost the other parties many millions of dollars in lawyer's fees. Their cases have zero merit. The lawyers should have know the cases had no merit

True, but the actual winner is Microsoft. They ought to be punished. They brought home tens of billions of business through the uncertainties surrounding the case. And I am positive they knew it. And I bet they encouraged it on purpose, on this purpose.
Of course, McBride must have his gooleys cut off, as well as his lawyers.
But justice this is not. Justice would be served only once Microsoft is called to duty and replenish all the funds, and stand in for the mess their lackeys have created.
Otherwise this case serves as an invitation to you to have someone else dragging your competitor through the mud, for years, without any case, sue him for hilarious damages. Without any chance for recourse, since that someone else keeps on dragging until your competitor is out of funds. All the business floating to you is your income, and in the end you wash your hands by distancing yourself from all the thunder created by that someone else.

I don't really believe all those stories painting McBride as stupid enough to gamble away SCO, his reputuation, eventually his own assests, his gooleys, until the last sen is gone. I think he was bride enough to do that based on some moral support from a place like Redmond. You don't take IBM head-on like he did, if you have some grams of brain left and don't enjoy high-level support.

Yes, cut off their gooleys [youtube.com] !

Re:Maybe the most important remaining issue (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521587)

It's actually pretty simple when you think about it. The legal profession long ago abandoned the principle of "rule of law" and substituted in its place "rule of lawyer". This turned the entire judicial branch of the government into thier own money making machine.

   

Re:Maybe the most important remaining issue (1)

legirons (809082) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522103)

"It is likely that Novell will get more than 50% of the money."

Is the number allowed to be some percentage? I thought that SCO had claimed it was "100% theirs or nothing", hence Novell being rather happy they could prove it wasn't 100% (and asking for "no new theories of apportionment to be conjured-up at the last minute, please")

Re:Maybe the most important remaining issue (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522769)

Well yes, but you see, a quick read of TFA would show you that this is the sole Novell motion denied. Oh wait, it's in the summary too. Don't you look like a fool now.

Re:Maybe the most important remaining issue (1)

legirons (809082) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522827)

"Don't you look like a fool now."

Just a slow reader -- finally got to that part of the court's PDF.

WHAT THE FUCK (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520347)

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU SLASH-TARD FUCKS NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CRAPFLOOD GOING ON IN TROLLTALK? DON'T YOU REALIZE THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED AGAINST FRONT PAGE STORIES?

WHAT...
THE...
F U C K

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Re:WHAT THE FUCK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20520951)

Wow, trolltalk is still being crapflooded. Doesn't Taco give a shit about the bandwidth and disk-space that's getting wasted on that? What a fuckface.

justice (3, Funny)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520535)

well the system works.. but in O(2^n) time with O(n!) cost. ugh.. DIE ALREADY.

no more war (1)

Ep0xi (1093943) | more than 7 years ago | (#20520795)

the SCO case is like another world war, but virtual

LamLaw Quote (1)

tiny69 (34486) | more than 7 years ago | (#20521669)

You know you hired a dumb or fraudulent lawyer when you are only left to defend how much you owe the other party. And you brought the law suits. Or, worse yet, you paid your lawyers a huge fee to get you into serious liabilities.

End of story.
LamLaw [lamlaw.com]

The Darl McBride response (2, Insightful)

merc (115854) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522169)

Darl just can't keep from flapping his festering pie-hole. Up until now SCO attorneys have been fairly good at keeping him quiet and from making public statements. However it looks as though he couldn't resist doing a computerworld interview. I'm not sure what he thinks he has to gain by attempting to try his case in the courts of public opinion:

We absolutely and fundamentally believe we are right in this case, and we believe in the justice system. But we also know that things don't always happen the way they're supposed to, and we're realistic about that point.

And this gem is fascinating as well:

Let's call a spade a spade: We just took a literal pounding. We got knocked down -- there is no doubt about it. This is not a good ruling for us. But it's not the end of the line of the legal battle. In fact, there's some very encouraging things that came out of even this ruling. And we will continue to fight on those fronts.

Original article here [computerworld.com]

I can only guess that the "encouraging thing" he is speaking about has to be that Kimball ruled that they own their own derivitive works of UnixWare. However these are facts were never in question. At this point we can expect SCO to argue that the M$ and Sun licenses were SCOsource licenses and not SVR4 UNIX. Good luck with that since I believe they have made conflicting public statements about that in the past as well.

Re:The Darl McBride response (1)

schon (31600) | more than 7 years ago | (#20523203)

What he said:

We absolutely and fundamentally believe we are right in this case, and we believe in the justice system. But we also know that things don't always happen the way they're supposed to, and we're realistic about that point.
What he really meant:

We absolutely and fundamentally believe we could get them to sellt, and we believe in the justice system because we know that things don't always happen the way they're supposed to, and we're realistic about that point.

I wonder if Darl and pals have hopped a plane yet- (1)

the saltydog (450856) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522177)

...bound for Pyongyang - I hear the weather will be enchanting there in a few months.

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of criminal scam artists.

Unbelievable (1)

Jaxoreth (208176) | more than 7 years ago | (#20522533)

...and denied Novell's final motion...
Novell just can't get a break, can they.

SCO: Useless (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 7 years ago | (#20523279)

Why is it that every time I hear about SCO, they're involved in some kind of lawsuit related to Unix.

Its never "SCO Release [Product] Killer" or "SCO continues to surprise us with their innovative ideas". No, its always some frivolous Unix patent lawsuit.

SCO: Shut the fuck up and do something useful with what little money you have left.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?