IBM Puts Pressure On SCO

inode_buddha writes "An article at Groklaw shows IBM's legal team dissecting the whole SCO thing professionally and thoroughly. I'm almost willing to bet the case gets dropped with extreme prejudice, especially now that Novell is getting involved. Is anyone taking bets as to when the case actually closes and how?" I suggest the MIT Technology Review add this one to their markets.

Comments

Re: MIT Technology Futures.

[cgranade]

X$699 says that SCO is dead before I get my Plasma TV.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Rolling, rolling, rolling

[jonathan_ingram]

7. As of the date of this submission, IBM has provided over one hundred thousand pages of production documents to SCO. IBM intends to continue rolling its production to SCO, despite the inadequate supplemental responses we have received from SCO.

I can just picture the trucks full of paper rolling toward SCO's lawyers...

Fraud

[fiftyfly]

What I wasnt to know isn't whether or not SCO get's it's ass handed back on a silver platter in court but rather when McBride's gonna face charges of securities fraud. There just isn't any other way to explain SCO's recent actions. Pretty blatant pump & dump case, so where's the charges?

Re:Fraud

[MatthewB79]

It's been said by SEC representatives already (as posted in other forums and here on /.) that SCO and Darl do not represent enough "pump-n-dump" to affect the current market. In other words, he's not even on thier radar.

Re:Fraud

[cdrudge]

But Marth inside trading a few million worth of stock (for a net gain of only a few hundred thousand dollars IIRC) does...

Re:Fraud

[roystgnr]

Everything that SCO has done, they announced to the public months ago.

SCO announces a lot of things to the public. It doesn't make any of them true. Ever heard directly from any of the MIT mathematicians who found all those millions of lines of infringing code?

Have you received your invoice yet, and paid your $699 into the program that SCO said got an "adequate" response?

Do you think any investors are still waiting for SCO to bring up it's copyright claims in court, since it hasn't been able to shut up about them in the media? For some reason SCO has decided to make it's IBM lawsuit entirely about contracts and "methods and ways of doing things" instead, and to claim in it's Red Hat defense that the only controversy between them and Linux will be settled by the IBM suit.

Wouldn't it be nice to take a look at that "copied" code, too, especially if you decided to buy SCO stock based on those NDA'd reports and made your purchase before it turned out they were just hyping up public domain Unix32V and independently cloned BSD code?

There are a lot of things that SCO has said in public that are outright lies, and just because you or I can do enough research to determine that doesn't mean every stockholder should be forced to.

Re:Fraud

[roystgnr]

So, you are suggesting that the SEC should make an administrative decision while the matter is pending in federal court?

Nope. But after SCO's case is dropped and SCO's remains are divided up between the IBM and Red Hat countersuits, then it might be a good time to take another look at the millions of dollars of SCO stock that it's executives and majority owners have been selling, at prices which have been inflated thousands of percent by their own hype. The SCO/Canopy plan, "Fraudulently squeeze as much money out of investors as possible while destroying the company's long term viability" shouldn't even be legal, much less encouraged financially like it has been so far.

SCO will of course be sued by their stockholders.

Or their major investors, if RBC and Deutsch aren't smart enough to get out before the bubble pops, and if the "they're front men for Microsoft!" conspiracy theories are baseless (which I think they are - Microsoft has already been pumping millions of dollars into SCO publically, so apparantly they don't feel they need to keep such funding a secret).

How about that. Legalese for the layman

[Cooper_007]

That's a first. A legal document that uses terms I can understand. Go IBM!

What I'm wondering though, it seems IBM is just trying to get the case dismissed here on the basis that SCO refuses to show just what it is they did wrong. Say the judge goes with IBM and dismisses the case, then what?
Given the recent slashdot article about paying Boies for his work, how much do they stand to gain if it came to this?

Thanks to Groklaw for keeping close tabs on the trial. I wish general media would be equally forthcoming rather than just spit out whatever drivel SCO shoves their way.

Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -

Re:How about that. Legalese for the layman

[Walterk]

Well, it's all thanks to the training which IBM lawyers get.

Re:How about that. Legalese for the layman

[Ohreally_factor]

>ay the judge goes with IBM and dismisses the case, then what?

Then the IBM countersuit goes forward. Oh, SCO will still have some explaining to do.

Re:How about that. Legalese for the layman

[defishguy]

I suspect that IBM is not trying to get the case dismissed at all. IBM is using the threat of dismissal to pressure SC0 into public discourse of the alleged stolen code.

SC0 desperately does not want the alleged stolen code to enter the public record because we all know it will be 3.2 seconds before any code is re-written in the kernel even if it's IBM doing the re-write.

This however is a great thing. SC0's case should be dismissed but not IBM's countersuit, which if found to be true will force SC0 to stop distributing Linux and probably their Linux personality kit too. It is IBM's countersuit which squarely applies to the GPL and it is also where the GPL will receive it's vidication.

2/1

[L-s-L69]

Case closes. All SCO execs having got rich, got jobs with micro$oft or just laying low for a while. No charges pressed, only people who suffer are SCO's employees. SCO gets taken over or closed for good.

Re:2/1

[Zocalo]

only people who suffer are SCO's employees

And the fools who bought SCO stock thinking they were going to get rich, but didn't quite dump the stock before the inevitable crash when the case collapses. I can't say I'm feeling sympathetic though.

And now, the hammer falls...

[dfung]

I'm glad I'm not on the receiving end of the IBM legal machine. As a bystander I must admit that it's quite entertaining:

"Either SCO has evidence to support its accusations or it does not. If it does, IBM is entitled to see it now; "

= "shit"

"if it does not, IBM will be entitled to dismissal of this case."

="or get off the pot"

At this point, Darl's lawyer turns to him and says, "You don't think IBM has run diffs on the source tree yet, do you? Because if they have and are ready to respond, we're probably pretty much screwed".

I pity the legal associates for IBM who have had to trace the provenance of every line in the source, but their pain will be worth it when SCO releases their first specifics and are nailed to the wall.

Re:And now, the hammer falls...

[theonetruekeebler]

SCO's lawyers get a twenty percent payoff if SCO wins or IBM settles. If SCO is bought out while the lawsuit is pending, the lawyers get twenty percent of that, too. source.

Nice to see that the lawyers themselves understand this suit is nothing more than a way to harass a large company into paying off.

Re:And now, the hammer falls...

[Krow10]

SCO's lawyers get a twenty percent payoff if SCO wins or IBM settles. If SCO is bought out while the lawsuit is pending, the lawyers get twenty percent of that, too.

Not only that, they get 20% of any equity financing deals that come along during the suit and up to an additional $1mm and 400K in options (see the Oct 17 8-K filing with the SEC here.) And note, they got $50mm in equity financing right around that time. So, Boise & co. could alrady have (or have commited to the) $11mm cash and $7mm worth of SCOX stock (at yesterdays closing price.) So much for Didio's confidence on SCOX's case 'cause Boise is taking it on "contingency."

Cheers,
Craig

Good or bad?

[GrouchoMarx]

I can't really decide if I want this case dismissed or not. (I know my desires in the matter have nothing to do with it, but hear me out.)

On the one hand, if the judge comes back with "SCO is lying through their teeth, there's nothing here, SCO bugger off, sorry about all the trouble IBM", then it will neatly tie up the FUD machine and probably bring an end to SCO right quick. Yes, there IS such a thing as bad PR, and we don't want any more of it. :-)

On the other hand, a dismissal would not allow for a vetting of the GPL in court. Of all the possible tests of the GPL, this is perhaps the most pro-GPL case we could hope for. (Not SCO's accusations, but IBM's responses that SCO is in GPL violation.) For a judge to formally declare theat the GPL is indeed valid and legally binding would be a very good thing, but won't happen before 2005 at the earliest the way this case is going. That's a lot of FUD time.

I really can't decide which to root for. :-)

Re:Good or bad?

[DaEMoN128]

Actually, the SCO case can be dismissed and not affect the IBM countersuit. The GPL issue isn't brought up in the SCO case; it is part of the IBM case. The GPL will still be tested even if Judge Kimball tells SCO to quit smoking crack and continue with discovery for the suit that IBM brought against them.

Dissecting

[Elendil]

An article at Groklaw shows IBM's legal team dissecting the whole SCO thing professionally and thoroughly.

And people say that animal testing should be banned... ;-)

but there are thousands of lines of copied code...

[penguin7of9]

Here is one:

break;

Here is another one:

}

This blatant violation of SCO's intellectual property has occurred all over the Linux kernel and many GNU user programs.

Re:but there are thousands of lines of copied code

[watzinaneihm]

The whole thing is funny. According to the article, SCO pulled up some 519 files which have around 300,000 lines of code, which might or might not contain tainted code. That is something like 1 percent of Linux kernel code. Rewriting the whole thing might take a month or two at the maximum, assuming cleanroom specs can be developed out of it.
If that is worth a billion, then is Linux worth 100 billions? Linus is then richer than Bill.

When thieves fall out...

[dipipanone]

One of the things that I find interesting about this whole case is the fact that Boies used to be a partner in Cravath, Swaine and Moore -- the law firm that are handling the case for IBM.

You've got to wonder what Dave's ex-partners currently make of all this. I guess initially they might have been somewhat anxious, thinking 'Oh no, one of our own coming after us. He'll be tuned in to all our cunning strategies and will use them against us.'

Now though, they must be laughing their asses off, thinking 'Good job that dummy left before he did any real damage to our reputation.'

On the other hand, given his twenty percent of all new investment in SCO, Boies has already had one decent payday, but you've got to wonder whether that will be sufficient to compensate for the damage to his firm's reputation that their handling of this case must have done to date?

Re:When thieves fall out...

[arth1]

Lawyers almost always benefit, no matter which side of a case they're on.

That's an unfortunate side effect of how the US constitution has been interpreted (by lawyers, I may add). Having the right to councel is interpreted as the right to the best councel your money can buy. It's apparently not unconstitutional, though, to have one side with a court-appointed $500 overworked defense lawyer who hasn't even had time to talk to you before the trial, while the other side has a $5 million staff of dedicated experts. That's considered a fair trial...

What would be more fair was if both sides paid what they thought the case was worth to a common pool, who was then split equally between court-appointed attorneys. Then you're entitled to as good a defense as your adversary, and if you're in the right, and contributed enough to cover basic fact-finding for both parties, that should mean you will win, right?
Oh, but the lawyers would lose...

Regards,
--
*Art

Re: MIT Technology Futures.

[stecker]

$499 says my plasma TV dims to half of its original brightness before this story stops dominating slashdot.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT

[locarecords.com]

...

Who ares which way the legal action goes.. That is not the point. The idea is to spread enough confusion and uncertainty that corporate entities will be more likely to use perceived 'legal' and 'safe' versions of unix that don't have any licensing issues.

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt contribute to the bottom line when it comes to conservative decisions about technology platforms. And let's face facts how many people read below the headline with its exagerrated emphasis on legal uncertainty and disarray.

No company wants to risk their technology decisions being upset by later unbudgeted licensing, legal and technical problems when the quiet life of a standard product from a multinational is on the shelf next to it...

It gets better!

[Larsing]

SCO has filed a motion to compel discovery against IBM and IBM has responded...

No, there are 368665 such violations

[|>>?]

Gotta love linux:

$ cd /usr/src/linux
$ grep -riE "break;|}" * | wc
368665 1011575 14615858

At a dollar per violation, that's a better return than my lotto investments...

There will be no lawsuit ?

[MaGGuN]

I suspect SCO will stop before any actual lawsuit takes place, using some obscure excuse. But at the same time holding their doors open for future litigation, just to maintain the insecurity among todays and future linux users.

Timeline

[Kalak]

It appears that "IBM's motion to compel is scheduled for oral arguments on Dec. 5." (stolen from Groklaw). Hopefully after that, things will tank and we can get back to normal.

Alien Autopsy

[AndroidCat]

An article at Groklaw shows IBM's legal team dissecting the whole SCO thing professionally and thoroughly.

Don't you usually only dissect something when it's dead? Yeah, that sounds about right--but stick the fork in to be sure. Pass the popcorn...

Clarity of response

[theolein]

IANAL (or his coffee boy) but one thing strikes me almost immediately upon reading the SCO and IBM requests and responses: IBM's method and language is far clearer and to the point than SCO's. IBM does not resort to the use of (semi)abusive language but stays focussed and follows avery clear pattern of logic which basically states that IBM will present reasonable evidence as requested, but it requires that SCO also provide resonable evidence and point out exactly what, where and when has been infringed. That is something that SCO seems to have real problems in doing (and no, the 337'000 lines in 531 files in the Linux source that have been mentioned by SCO will not suffice as nowhere does SCO point out exactly, as required by law, which lines in those files are SCO's property with a reference to Unic source code), and SCO seems to have real problems in defining what has been infringed. In fact it seems as if SCO is trying to make a case as it goes along and has no real evidence to date.

What is also noticable is that IBM is bringing SCO's public behaviour into the case, finally. SCO is finally being called to account for it's disgusting public behaviour, and I'm pretty sure that IBM is going to use Darl, Chris and Mike's statements against them in court. I think those boys are probably too fucking stupid to realise that what they're said amounts to public record and is admissable in court. I hope they end up being as poor as I am. I hope Darl and co get sued individually by hordes of Linux contributors for damaging Linux business and end up poverty stricken on the street corner begging for booze money in Salt Lake City.

Re:Clarity of response

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"IBM does not resort to the use of (semi)abusive language but stays focussed and follows avery clear pattern of logic "

IANAL, but IAAPW (I am a professional writer) and IBM's filings are superbly written. they have a good final edit team at work. Compared to them, the SCO lawyers are handing in the sort of incoherent work typical of term papers done at the last minute with the help of large amounts of caffeine.

This could easily be used in a "legal writing" course as "how to" and "how not to" write briefs, motions and memorandums.

Re:Clarity of response

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that you're correct. I just spent quite a while reading these notes and I notice a pattern.

In IBM's response to discovery, it actually lists substantive complaints and gives SCO a reasonable amount of material for discovery (e.g. the sources to several AIX & Dynix versions). They could, perhaps, have given SCO a bit more, but they may already be working on that and much of what SCO asks for is irrelevant. SCO's complaints about IBM not producing enough in discovery strike me as whiney. They've gotten a truckload and it's their own damn falut that their requests are so vague. They do not make them the least bit more specific, they just fault IBM for not providing ALL that they've asked for (just look at how, in EVERY deficiency listing, they have the word "all" in bold italic).

IBM, on the other hand, asks for something very specific: they want to know what they've infringed upon, according to SCO. SCO can't even give them that. Since that is the gravamen of the entire damn case, you'd think that SCO could give them something more than a huge list of filenames which might have some SCO code or something in them. SCO no longer seems very sure of that--they keep saying they need more information from IBM. But if they don't already know that they have a case, how the hell do they expect to fish for it in discovery? That just screams to me "we have no case, we need all their documents so we can search for one" ... Moreover, they request PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE information (IBM's donations to Linux). Duh. Haven't they heard of LKML and such? I'm pretty sure that the list of ALL of IBM's donations to Linux can be found therein, as well as in the kernels themselves...

In short, it's clear to anyone who reads both documents that SCO has no case and is desperately searching for something to throw at IBM, while IBM has a large number of substantive complaints and SCO just wants to stall for time.

But we knew that already, didn't we?

Re:Clarity of response

[agutier]

Freudian typo! I ment Mormon! My apologies to the Mormon faithful. I am very sorry.

I hope Darl and co get sued individually by hordes of Linux contributors for damaging Linux business and end up poverty stricken on the street corner begging for booze money in Salt Lake City.

A devout Mormon begging for alcohol in the Mormon capitol. Now, thats an imaginative penance. I second.

Insiders are making bets

[The Mutant]

And they ain't good..

Insiders are all selling. Keep in mind that they have complete and perfect information about their firm, and its future prospects.

Insider selling is usually a sign that management feels the shares they hold are over, not under, valued.

Supporting IBM and Linux

[EmagGeek]

I just bought two brand-spankin-new IBM laptops to replace my ailing HP machines. Going to put Suse on one of them and RH Enterprise Linux on the other one. Going to take a picture of them side-by-side and mail it to SCO. Can't wait :)

Re:I bet ...

[Ella the Cat]

I suggest a Slashdot poll. Seriously. Then we can look back and see whether or not Slashdotters in the aggregate can predict the future regarding something we clearly have a lot to say about.

Re:I bet ...

[orthogonal]

Is anyone taking bets as to when the case actually closes and how

Is anyone taking bets?

Are you blind man? The reason that SCOX is trading at $17.50 (that's American dollars, not Italian Lire or EverQuest gold pieces, that's American dollars my man!) is that a whole bunch of people are betting!

When a stock goes from 78 cents (that's pennies, that's less than the cheapest Slurpy at 7-11) to $22.29 in the latest 52 weeks, that's not investing, that's gambling, pure and simple.

And when the stock moves based on SCO's assertion that AT&T ultimately sold them the One Ring to rule all unix-like Oses, well... then, SCOX is Utah's Vegas, Atlantic City, and Churchill Downs all rolled into one!

"Who can take a crap SCOX/
Sprinkle it with lies/
Cover it in Boies and a GPL theft or two?/
The MacBride Man!/
The MacBride Man can/
The MacBride Man can 'cause he mixes it with FUD/
And makes the crap taste good"
(to the tune of "The Candyman Can")

What about UNIX?

[Queuetue]

If this does spell the end for SCO, what will become of UNIX in that case? Is it possible to finally move this ancient codebase - which seems to have little value beyond it's potential as an IP strongarm weapon - into the public domain once and for all?

Re:What about UNIX?

[linuxbikr]

Actually, NO ONE wants the UNIX Sys V code and all the contracts and copyrights that go with it! AT&T dumped it because it was becoming a pit they couldn't escape from in terms of contractual arrangements, royalties, rights, etc. So many companies are tied up in one way or the other with the original UNIX licensing agreements that it is quite the Gordian knot to unravel.

It was for sale and Novell stepped up to the plate. Sun didn't want it. IBM didn't want it. HP didn't want it. They knew what a disaster the thicket of licensing on the original UNIX was. Let it be someone else's problem. AT&T knew it and Novell found out shortly thereafter. Then they realized how much of a problem it was and went looking another sucker..er..buyer for the UNIX codebase. And SCO was dumb enough to think it was a good idea.

You can't open source Sys V. Too many confidentiality and licensing agreements are in place and those licensees would have to agree as a whole before that code could get released since all of them use some of that code in one form or another. I am sure that very little original SysV code exists in AIX except for compatibility purposes. SunOS/Solaris is based on BSD Unix so they probably licensed Sys V just to cover their bases.

Methods and concepts for Unix are already more or less in the public domain. The POSIX standard and the Open Group have that covered. Unix and Unix-like clones have been implemented and reimplemented so many times over the years and the ideas are so well known, who would want the Sys V code at all even for historical reasons? I'd sooner want to see the code to the PDP-11 than the Sys V codebase. At least the PDP-11 code has a rich history behind it that might bring back some fond memories for some. Plus, it's dead and gone. Unix is alive and kicking and if I want to see how Unix works, I need look no further than the Linux Kernel Whitepapers and Annotated Code guides.

Re:So are IBM...

[warpSpeed]

Oh wait, both selling patterns are pretty similar

How can you say that a 47.0% change in "Institutional Shares Held" Vs a 1.1% is similar.

Those SCO execs are pulling the "yellow handles" hard and fast yelling "eject! eject! eject!".

Or another idea

[A nonymous Coward]

Where each side can only spend as much as the other. If I am sued by McD, and only want to spend $100 on my defense, that's all they can spend on their offense. Or if I sue McD, and only want to spend $2000 on the case, that's all they get to spend of defense.

There has to be some minimum, of course, it makes no sense to expect a corporate lawyer to only spend $100 on a case. But no banks of several lawyers deponing hundreds of witnesses just to put the fear of McD in people.

Another aspect would be an escape clause ... if McD wants to spend $1M, they have to loan me the difference from what I want to spend, and if they lose, they don't get it back. I have to agree to this loan.

This would apply in all cases, criminal or civil. No more state DAs spending a fortune on sending some illiterate scumbag to the death chamber because his public dedfender only had $300 to spend.

Anyway, I like my scheme :-) Seems like it ought to go a long ways towards reducing the money power in our legal system.

This is great.....

[mormop]

Every press release that goes out gets more and more nuts!

They've claimed, retracted, changed their terms of reference, claimed IP, dropped IP and gone for "contractual terms", reclaimed IP etc. I mean this is the sort of thing judges hate i.e. being pissed around by claimants who know not the difference twixt arse and elbow.

I can't wait for the press release that reads:

It all started when a guy in the legal department started having traumatic flashbacks to a Vietnam movie he watched in 1991. This may or may not have had something to do with the half pound of red leb he'd been smoking while watching 'cos he was still at law school at the time. The resulting hysteria was like, infectious, and spread to the management, and like, before anyone realised what was happening we'd turned charlie into evil commie open source developers that had to be wiped out at any cost.

By the time anyone came round and realised that no-one was taking notice of anything we said it was too late. Our customers had migrated to Linux and mailed us telling us to piss off and it took 3 days to stop the management squatting on the roof and howling at the moon.

I mean, what happened man?......

Bad courtroom theme music...

[Dr. Evil]

"I bring the courts attention to document 3,002,345 where it plainly indicates that Darl McBride had an intimate relationship with Bill Gates. Darl, could you please read the message you sent Bill Gates?"

"<ahem> I don't recall composing that message."

"Please read the message for the court"

"The message says 'I love you'"

"It is also plain that you sent many similar messages to Bill Gates, including instructions as to how he can enlarge his anatomy, is this true?"

GPL in court

[Ender Ryan]

Actually, the GPL has already "stood up" in court, see MySQL vs. Nusphere.

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34553.htm

Specifically, In the process, a federal judge deemed the GPL enforceable and binding.

The codes SCO shown is actually owned by FreeBSD

[kimkhan]

Read the last para just before the section 'Migration' starts. http://www.thejemreport.com/software/freebsd51.php FreeBSD license lets anyone to use their code in any propreitary software and not affect the software license. So I can take code from FreeBSD and incorporate it into my propreitary software and not having to release it to the community. That is I believe what happend with SCO, they thought they owned the code that is actually licensed by FreeBSD in the first place.

Re:but there are thousands of lines of copied code

[michael_cain]

SCO pulled up some 519 files which have around 300,000 lines of code, which might or might not contain tainted code. That is something like 1 percent of Linux kernel code. Rewriting the whole thing might take a month or two at the maximum, assuming cleanroom specs can be developed out of it.

First point -- on the assumption that the case will continue, which I believe, it may be some time before anyone knows which lines are "tainted". For example, SCO points at the source files for JFS and says "These may be tainted." IBM says, "Which lines?" SCO responds with, "Any lines which you developed under AIX. Which are those?" SCO's legal theory seems to be that any features of AIX which were transfered to Linux are a violation, unless IBM can prove that the code given to Linux was developed as part of a non-AIX operating system, then ported to Linux directly from that non-AIX system. IBM is using the obvious tactic of providing a mountain of raw information, then demanding that SCO sift through it and identify the lines that are in question -- make it too EXPENSIVE for SCO to continue the case.

Second point -- on the assumption that SCO wins, which I don't believe will happen, generating cleanroom specs may well be a problem. As I understand it, the contract forbids revealing the methods as well as the source code. IBM would be in the position of having to say to the Linux community, "The code and documentation that we revealed to you, and on which your specs are based, were trade secrets that we did not have the right to reveal." ANY use of that information -- such as writing specs -- could be deemed improper by a court. However, if SCO wins and gets a large settlement from IBM, I would expect the judge to rule that SCO has now been compensated for the loss of their trade secrets, and that the Linux community is free to make use of those "secrets".

SCO appears to have (although IANAL) a simple case that is at least arguable. I have to believe that all of the public posturing, much if not all of which is irrelevant, is intended to run the share price up so that the executives can cash out.

Re:With extreme prejudice?

[AnotherBlackHat]

When a case is dismissed "with prejudice," it means the matter is considered decided, and the suit can't be filed again (although an appeal to a higher court might be possible).

Dismissal "without prejudice" means that the matter is not decided, but some un-met condition (procedural or otherwise) prevents the suit from going forward. A suit dismissed without prejudice may be re-filed at a later date when conditions allow.

IAAL, but I've never heard the term "extreme prejudice" outside of jokes and movies about assassination.

So clearly, dismissing with "extreme prejudice" means they can't bring suit again,
and judge orders the bailiff to shoot them.

Sorry, but no

[DaveAtFraud]

I frequent Groklaw so I chased your article through Google to finally end up with this article which digests the fallout from the case. The critical quote from the paper is (top of page two)

One particularly interesting point: it did not appear that anyone was arguing that the GPL did not apply or was not a valid license. Though what Judge Saris said in the proceedings has no value as precedent in other cases, it sounded as though the GPL would be treated as any other license would be in a software context.

I would have loved to have come up with a finding that says the GPL is enforceable and binding but this would seem to indicate that MySql vs. NuSphere doesn't provide it. I'm guessing this is because the GPL itself was not in dispute, but rather, the question was whether it applied to NuSphere's proprietary extensions to MySQL.