SCO Slammed in Slander of Title Suit

SillySlashdotName writes "Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements. More info on groklaw." EWeek also has a story.

Comments

Slap!

[ajlitt]

I'm Novell, bitch!

Re:Slap!

[dj_cel]

In YO Face! Everybody, King Kong ain't got $4it on Me!

Re:Slap!

[blanks]

Novel whos your daddy? *Slap*
SCO Your are !?!
Novel Whats my name! *Slap*
SCO Novel?!?
Novel Spell it ! *Slap*
SCO N *Slap* O *Slap* .....

Re:Slap!

[GrassMunk]

hey SCO, what did the five finger say to the face?

There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[CodeMaster]

We just need to make sure that SCO will keep going the other way ;-)

Finally some sense out of our judicial system. Who would believe that...

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[frodo from middle ea]

OT may be...

There is some light at the end of the tunnel

When you in a long narrow tunnel and you start to see light at the end of it, It's usually of the approaching train.

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[tds67]

When you in a long narrow tunnel and you start to see light at the end of it, It's usually of the approaching train.

Or you're having a near-death experience.

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[PSC]

When you in a long narrow tunnel and you start to see light at the end of it, It's usually of the approaching train.

Or a fire-breathing dragon.

Or, worse yet, a burning truck.

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[RancidBeef]

When you in a long narrow tunnel and you start to see light at the end of it, It's usually of the approaching train.

Or you're having a near-death experience.

What's the difference?

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[jjoyce]

Or even worse, you realize you are a turd.

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[JabberWokky]

Arg... ahh... the CLEANERS!!!

--
Evan "Better than the Bog of Eternal Stench"

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[Anonymous Coward]

When you in a long narrow tunnel and you start to see light at the end of it, It's usually of the approaching train.

Except this time the train is coast-to-coast express, the engine has big blue letters 'I', 'B', and 'M' stamped in the front, and the Linux is sitting in the 1st class.

Anonymus Cowards Unite

Re:There is some light at the end of the tunnel

[acebone]

Or a near-life experience ?

The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Pavan_Gupta]

And so now, it becomes clear that SCO may never provide the required evidence to prove that they are indeed correct. I believe that this is a clear signal that the SCO case is seeing the end of it's days. Everyone, rejoice! Together now!

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

The rats are fleeing the sinking ship -> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=6m&l=off&z= l&q=l&c=

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[gcaseye6677]

Wow. SCO is so lucky that the stock market is closed today. With 2 bad news items hitting at once (this and the McDonalds story), the effect on their share price would be devastating. Still, Monday will not be a good trading day for them.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[NanoGator]

"Everyone, rejoice! Together now!"

Show me the money.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[SoSueMe]

That graph means nothing. Darl will just rotate it 90 degrees left and prove that the market is behind his "legal" claims.

It should work, shouldn't it? He took the law and rotated it to suit the market mentality.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Just like I took his suit and mentally rotated it until his collar strangle him. >:-D

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[ron_ivi]

rejoice

NOT! It's a sad day.

The open source community _wanted_ to see Darl vs. IBM in a GPL suit.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Spudley]

Stock price graphs that look like that are fairly common; all companies have bad patches.

But it's not often that you see one where the origin of the graph is so close to zero. Usually it looks like a major dip in the price, but only because the scale is between 200 and 220 or something like that. But this graph actually goes right down to 4, from a peak of 20. That's serious bad news for any company.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[rlgoer]

All the dismissal says is that SCO didn't provide an indication of 'special' damages incurred as a result of Novell's actions. They provided only an indication of 'general' damages. They have 30 days to remedy this omission. If SCO lawyers are worth their salt they'll be able to produce some evidence of special damages, and even if those don't hold up during a trial, the evidence will allow them to win this preliminary battle and move on. Note that Judge Kimball spent a lot of time, though, talking about whether Novell did in fact transfer copyright. The language used in the original SCO/Novell contract is uncomfortably vague, and it's not clear exactly what was transferred and what wasn't (SCO was apparently supposed to specify by a certain date what copyrights it was assuming ownership of). Although SCO entered press releases into evidence that are supposed to tell us what everyone was thinking at the time, it's not clear from the language of the contract really what was transferred and what was intended to be transferred. I'd hate to bet the farm on this if I were SCO. It seems pretty tenuous.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Trepalium]

Wouldn't want to be SCO in this position. Either you try to continue the current lawsuit against Novell despite the fact the judge is already saying that the chances are not good, or they drop the lawsuit, and risk the Autozone, DC and Red Hat lawsuits and several of their claims in the IBM lawsuit coming to a very abrupt and very bad (for SCO) end. They might be able to prevail against Novell with a plain breach of contract claim since the ammendment says that Novell will transfer any copyrights that are required for exercising their UNIX business, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that either. After all, it's been eight years since they signed that one, and they haven't needed them until now, and only after selling the business to yet another company?

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[_KiTA_]

What's the full story on the McDonalds thing? I heard they moved to Linux in Germany recently -- were they using SCO Unix before?

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[mcpkaaos]

Still, Monday will not be a good trading day for them.

Thanks for the insight. We couldn't have guessed that from the 6 month steady decline. :)

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that Judge Kimball spent a lot of time, though, talking about whether Novell did in fact transfer copyright. The language used in the original SCO/Novell contract is uncomfortably vague, and it's not clear exactly what was transferred and what wasn't

In which case, they're dead. US Code Title 17, Section 204 is quite clear in that the transfer of copyright must be clear. Judge Kimball hinted strongly that the Novell-OldSCO APA and Amendment 2 are not adequately clear.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[cdrudge]

Yes. McD's is (was?) one of SCO's biggest customers and supporters. SCO has used them for years as a reference for new customers and also has used them as a case study on their website.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[apc]

I think that this memorandum opinion is almost wholly procedural, and barely newsworthy. This was a motion to dismiss under rule 12, rather than a rule 56 summary judgment motion-- which would be a conclusion, as a matter of law, that there was no case. Rule 12 basically means that they didn't plead it right-- and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are exceedingly liberal when it comes to amended complaints. Novell almost certainly filed the Rule 12 motion because they didn't want to have to defend against a complaint as vague as SCO's. Unless SCO annoys the judge by not even making an attempt to plead special damages in the amended complaint, I suspect this case will last until summary judgment, which, knowing Federal scheduling, could be six months to a year away.

Why? Because there's a hell of a lot of leeway to amend-- all the pleading is is a basic outline of what the lawsuit is about. You can't make stuff up-- Rule 11 of the FRCP can bite you hard if you do (and I fully expect SCO to get hit by Rule 11 sanctions before the end of the case if their case is as weak as it appears)-- but a bright law student could come up with special damages in an amended complaint. It was just sloppiness or vagueness on the drafting lawyer's part-- special damages could relate to SCO's stock value, to the value of its UNIX assets, or to money lost in licensing fees. Get an accountant to estimate some numbers based on sales and licensing figures, sign an affidavit that they're good, and attach them to the complaint. All they have to do is say what they think they lost-- they'll still have to prove it later, which is the tricky part, but at this stage of the case, they just have to allege their damages with some particularity.

(I'm halfway convinced that the reason Novell wants this case in Federal court is Rule 11 of the FRCP. I don't know Utah law, but I highly doubt it's as harsh as the Feds are if you're caught making up evidence or telling lies to the court.)

(IAAL)

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Too Much Noise]

Given the fact that the hints are SCO would lose a pure copyright argument, they might not want to go there (remember, their own (denied) motion was intended to prevent this - move back to state court, no copyrights involved).

Maybe they would rather lose this on insufficient pleadings rather than clarifying the ownership of the copyrights - that is, the fact that they weren't transfered?

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Krusty_Klown]

Yes and when SCO becomes a penny stock I shall buy all of it with the money I am saving by using open source products then "All your *nix are belong to me!" Well, I might get two lines of code. But it will be mine, ALL MINE! Mwuahaha

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Grrr]

Naw, rats would've been more discriminating all along. They're smarter than some people (and AC's) I know.

<grrr>

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Ohreally_factor]

The rats have been shorting SCOX for months now.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Ohreally_factor]

You're forgetting something. IBM has counterclaims against SCO involving GPL.

Besides, the case at hand is SCO v. Novell. The ruling does impact the IBM case.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Who will sign on the line for special damages?
It must be risky to put your professional butt on the line, as people on the other side will be coming after you - in all respects.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Mycroft_VIII]

As long as this isn't the straw that breaks sco into oblivion. (sorry about the scrambled metaphor)
If this is enough SCO goes belly up for good before IBM's suit goes to court, well you kinda need someone to sue to have a suit. so to speak.

Mycroft

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Zeinfeld]

And so now, it becomes clear that SCO may never provide the required evidence to prove that they are indeed correct.

Unfortunately the court dismissed the case because the complaint failed to plead special damages. This is something that can probably be rectified quite easily.

It would have been much better if the case had been dismissed because Novell clearly had a legitimate reason to believe that its statements were likely to be true and therefore could not have been made with malice.

Some of the other reasoning in the judgement looks very bad for SCO though, in particular the court appears to have all but said that the contract ammendment did not transfer the copyrights as a matter of law.

One thing is sure, this one will not go to a jury, there are no facts in dispute, it is a purely legal interpretation of a contract and copyright law.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[apc]

I could see why SCO itself might not want to go there, but if I were their lawyer, I'd be scared that they'd go after *me* for malpractice if the case went down on a Rule 12 motion. It's just too messy. Better to lose it on the merits, with all those consquences, or withdraw the case without prejudice and save it for a better time, than to lose it because the lawyer screwed up-- which is an impolite way of expressing what Rule 12 is about. Not being a securities lawyer, I'm not sure which result would have a better shot of starting a class-action derivative suit by SCO's stockholders, but that's a classic sign of rats leaving a sinking ship, if you're waiting for the fall of SCO.

Re:The Beggining of The End for SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if you could find an accountant willing to sign off on Enron's numbers, you can find one that's willing to accept a nice paycheck for encouraging SCO's pipe dream.

One down

[dustmote]

How many more cases to go?

Re:One down

[Dan Ost]

SCO vs Daimler Chrysler
SCO vs AutoZone
SCO vs IBM
RedHat vs SCO

SCO vs Novell isn't over yet since SCO can resurrect it by properly pleading
its case, but even a well plead case looks like it would lose. Just my
uneducated take on things legal.

Re:One down

[dustmote]

And the counter-suits, as well. Okay, cool. Despite the person who modded me as overrated it was a serious question, there are enough lawsuits now that I'm not sure of the exact count anymore. :)

Re:One down

[Ohreally_factor]

Keep in mind that a lot hinges on SCO v. Novell. If Novel is able to prove that they hold the copyrights in question, the case against AZ crumbles, Red Hat's case is strengthened, and much of the case against IBM evaporates.

Re:One down

[Fred_A]

Not to mention

1. me vs. SCO for, um... mental cruelty
2. ????
3. Profit !!

What do you mean SCO folded ? Hey !

Puff, puff, pass...

[BrynM]

From the article:

Marc Modersitzki, SCO's public relations manager, said, "We're pleased with the ruling. We look forward to responding to the court's special damages request." This request gives SCO the chance to amend its complaint against Novell.

So they're pleased they get a chance to clarify their complaint, but the idea of being pleased about the ruling itself makes me think that Darl has been passing the crack pipe around the office. I personally don't think they are going to make the 30 day deadline for filing the special damages request. SCO has been acting like a student that professes to be smart, but never does a bit of their assignments.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[FerretFrottage]

No kidding...last time SCO needed to produce a bunch of evidence, they failed ot do so or were late because they were on Christmas vacation. Now with summer and all, I suspect they'll claim that the weather is just too nice to deal with the judge's demands.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Crack heads dont pass. They keep it all for themselves.

Just an FYI. The crack culture and the MJ culture are very different.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[BrynM]

Now with summer and all, I suspect they'll claim that the weather is just too nice to deal with the judge's demands.

With that inflated stock value that just went away in the last month, I bet someone at SCO bought a boat when their net worth went up enough. Too bad it looks like they'll have to give the boat back when this is all over and their net worth tanks. Might as well get that last hoorah in ;)

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[BrynM]

The crack culture and the MJ culture are very different.

I know and have lived with both crack heads and pot heads. (long stories - don't ask). You're right, but the humor still stands for the average /.er.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[khym]

Well, you see, according to SCO, they really, really wanted to have the issue tried in fedetral court before Judge Kimball, but gosh darn it, the rules require them to ask for it to be remanded to the state court. So they're glad they lost the remand.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Jerf]

but the idea of being pleased about the ruling itself makes me think that Darl has been passing the crack pipe around the office

Oh come on, surely you know The Rules. Rule #1 is, in its totality, "Never Admit Anything. Anything."

This is exactly the sort of thing that caused the creation of the Cluetrain Manifesto; it's not a perfect document but there's a lot of truth in it, like #14:

14. Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman.

You know they lost. I know they lost. They know they lost. But The Rules say they must not admit it, not even a little.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Yeah, but I'm really tired of the stereotype of the average MJ smoker, especially associating them with hopeless crackheads.

I'd love to hear some of your stories about crackheads/potheads. :)

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a crackhead and I pass you insensitive clod!

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not talking about gas.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a crackhead and don't like being associated with Darl you insensitive clod!

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

Oh come on, surely you know The Rules. Rule #1 is, in its totality, "Never Admit Anything. Anything."

1) Admit Nothing
2) Deny Everything
3) Make Counter Accusations

There probably ought to be a 4) ??? and 5) Profit, but isn't that joke getting a little stale?

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Karem Lore]

Do you not think that this is another delay tactic? 30-days to raise share value, sell a few more and come back in 29 days saying...Ooh look at this...we do/don't have evidence. Sorry, misplaced it somewhere...

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

No no, that can be done better, they should stage a breakin, then claim the evidence was stolen by those evil ip-stealin' linux hippies

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad the clue train never made any stops in "profit town".

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[ucblockhead]

If they admit they lost, they could be sued for "failing to promote shareholder value" or somesuch.

They are essentially bound to see this through...otherwise, they'd get sued by their own shareholders. They took a gamble and lost, and everything else is just following through to avoid getting sued.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting stale?! The mold growing on it has evolved into a higher form of intelligence by now. And anyone who attempts to welcome their mold overlords should dragged out into the street and shot. :P

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

I bet he'd also be pleased to have a 3-way circle-jerk with Chris and and Darl.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[marsu_k]

I thought the rules were:
#1 You don't talk about the lawsuit
and
#2 You don't talk about the lawsuit

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you "aced the tests" that means you got all A's.

So how did you manage to accumulate an overall B grade? That must take special smarts ;-)

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

....in soviet russia.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[TWX]

"They are essentially bound to see this through...otherwise, they'd get sued by their own shareholders. They took a gamble and lost, and everything else is just following through to avoid getting sued."

That still might not work. They might not get sued for exactly the same fine points, but considering incompetence in senior management, incompetence in those hired to determine that Linux was to be a target, incompetence in the Public Relations department for making false accusations and unfounded claims, and incompetence in the legal department, it might not be hard to sue them (or brokers that convinced a stockholder to have purchased them).

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Pikhq]

And anyone who attempts to welcome their mold overlords should dragged out into the street and shot. :P

I for one, would like to welcome our new mold overlords!

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

All your mold overlords are belong to us!

(Or whatever it is. It's been so long, I can hardly even remember any more.)

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[RancidBeef]

From some article in the (not so) distant future:

Marc Modersitzki, former public relations manager of the IBM subsidiary formerly known as SCO, said, "We're all pleased with the outcome of the case." Mr. Modersitzki is now assistant vice president of the janitorial service, toilet scrubbing division, in the IBM headquarters building. Darl McBride, former CEO of SCO, could not be reached for comment as it's not currently visiting day at the prison where he now resides as a result of of the charges filed on behalf of former SCO stockholders who seem not to be as pleased.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Come now! He pretty much has to say he's pleased by the ruling. The other alternative is to say something to the effect of "Oh, crap! We're screwed now...guess it's time to start polishing my resume."

Which may be what he's thinking, but it's not actually practical to say it in public...

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[glk572]

This is my strategy in traffic court. It hasn't failed me yet. I just don't think it'll work in "real" court. The real issue is that this works great when you're the defendant, but the plantiff needs to prove their case, not just create doubt.

However they mite bring this out in the unlikely event that any sco case ever ends up in a jury trial.

My step 4 is "produce no evidence," 5 "attack!!!" ... profit

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[mec]

I can't get to the e-week article but I have read the 29 pages of the judge's order.

I know it's unpopular to say anything good about TSG, and I hate TSG as much as the next slashdotter. More, probably. But to me, this opinion does look positive for TSG.

The court denied Novell's motion to dismiss the case, and then granted TSG leave to re-file their case with specific information on special damages.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

So join the fun...sue Darl for slander of character!

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[JDevers]

When you are paid in cash or in stock options that you cash out before the tanking begins your network doesn't dip all that much. Many people at SCO made a lot of money on basically nothing the past year.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Martin Blank]

What they're pleased about is the court's refusal to dismiss the part of the case revolving around the copyright ownership because of ambiguities in the language of APA Amendment 2. Novell had wanted the copyrights ruled to be under the ownership of Novell, which would have caused the whole SCO case against IBM to collapse. The court did say in the decision that the amendment seems to be a promise to transfer the copyrights rather than an actual transfer, but that an ambiguity of wording requires further review:

"The APA Amendment No. 2 excludes from transfer "[a]ll copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the [APA] required for [SCO's predecessor] to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and Unixware technologies." The Amendment does not identify which copyrights are required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and Unixware and provides no date for the transfer.

While the court seems to lean towards Novell on this overall point, I would honestly be inclined to think that the copyrights to Unix code would come along with such a transfer, although I would hope that I'd be a bit more intelligent and actually spell it out. The big question, of course, is: Did this document actually convey a transfer of copyright, even without a clear declaration to it (remember that it is an amendment to a contract of sale)? It doesn't seem to me that SCO has a lot of room here, but it might just be able to wiggle out.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Total_Wimp]

When I was a military journalist we used to cover war games for the post newspaper. Usually we'd cover the war games from the perspective of a particular unit.

Naturally, in a war-game there's a winner and a loser, but we never, ever printed that the unit we were covering lost. They either "completely dominated", or they "learned a great deal from the exercise." I felt like I was at the Special Olympics handing out gold medals to everyone.

Here, SCO, you get a gold medal today too.

TW

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Zordak]

I personally don't think they are going to make the 30 day deadline for filing the special damages request.

Of course they're not going to make the deadline. Judge Kimball may as well have ordered them to submit evidence of a magnetic monopole within 30 days.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[mindstrm]

I think, though, the intent of that statement was more about ensuring that some other copyright held by Novell at the time would not interfere with SCO using the rights it had purchased in the agreement.

This makes sense.

The problem is, it is too wordy, and open to interpretation.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Martin Blank]

Agreed, as well as perhaps to iron out some minor copyright holdings that may have interfered with operations, such as those for manuals or guides. But intended meaning and actual effect can be very different things if one is not careful. I imagine there are people at both companies that are kicking themselves for not clarifying and/or following up on this single point.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[iabervon]

Translation: "We were afraid it would be worse. Also, our plan to delay the case by making the claim wrong the first time worked perfectly. Plus, this gives us the chance to come up with some new outlandish idea. See you in 30 days, or however long we can stretch it out."

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[vsprintf]

I for one, would like to welcome our new mold overlords!

BANG!

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Webmonger]

When I was a military journalist...

Cool. We need more military journalists. Let's see if Darl still lies through his teeth with an AK-47 in his face...

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably because some proportion of the marks came from assignments instead of tests. It makes sense if you think about it for a couple of seconds.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[vsprintf]

If they admit they lost, they could be sued for "failing to promote shareholder value" or somesuch.

There is no law that requires company officers to "promote shaerholder value". They have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company. Period. The shareholders should be suing SCO's management for failing to support and modernize the company's products and for turning the company into a half-way house for recovering lawyers. That is NOT in the best interests of the company.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[mwa]

Not exactly. Novell moved to dismiss based on falsity (DENIED) and on pleading of special damages (GRANTED without prejudice), not on the merits (although I'm sure that will come later). In law math a dismissal GRANTED + a dismissal DENIED == a dismissal GRANTED. SCO has 30 days to define with an acceptable specification of "special damages" or the case is done.

Further, SCOs motion to remand to state court was their argument that this is a contract, not a copyright case. The judge disagreed - it is about copyright, specifically your point about whether the ammended APA constitutes a transfer or not. So it stays in federal court where Novell can argue that it doesn't.

The judge scattered throughout the decision that it doesn't look like the ammended APA is a proper transfer to him, but he denied the claim on falsity because he felt that it was premature and the parties should have their arguments heard in court. The message to SCO was pretty clear: "When this get's to court, your ducks better be forming a better line than they are right now."

IANALBIAAGLR

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[psaltes]

The court denied Novell's motion to dismiss the case, and then granted TSG leave to re-file their case with specific information on special damages.

Actually, Novell filed two motions to dismiss, and the court denied one and granted without prejudice the other. The granted motion was about special damages, which SCO apparently failed to prove. I don't know whether the extra thirty days are required by the law or not, but there may be a reason why they didn't do file this information in the first place (i.e. there were no special damages). It looks like if SCO doesn't file this in thirty days, the dismissal holds.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[DugzDC]

So it's just that boolean math I learned at school - T + F = T
so here's geek challenge. Come up with a boolean expression for the entire law process.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are paid in cash or in stock options that you cash out before the tanking begins your network doesn't dip all that much.

How would it affect your network? Net worth, perhaps...

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Does that mean i may call any corporation's execs zealots? Or perhaps... actors? Acting zealots? Hmmm...

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

You bungled a good joke.

Rule #1: You don't talk about court club.
Rule #2: You do not talk about court club!!

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[ScrewMaster]

Actually, it sounds a lot like the standards that Hubbard laid down for his Scientology cult. Always attack, never defend, never admit any wrongdoing. The Scientologists are still around ... let's hope that SCO has less staying power.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

IANALBIAAGLR

I Am Not A Lawyer But I Am Always Giving Larry Rimjobs?

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[DashEvil]

I think it's safe to say that unless otherwise is explicity stated, IANAL is assumed.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

The APA certainly lack enough specifity as to which rights are transferred and when to leave a reasonable doubt for the Slander of title charge against Novell.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[mec]

That's mostly similar to my view, but there's a subtle and important difference.

It's not that SCO "failed to prove" special damages. That has the connotation that SCO came to court and presented its evidence and the court didn't believe their side. Instead, the situation is: SCO didn't explicitly list the special damages, so the judge told them they had to file a new complaint with an explicit list of special damages. When the court gets the new filing, THEN it will proceed to hear motions and evidence about SCO's special damages.

SCO just has to come back with a new filing where they claim exactly how they were damaged, and the suit proceeds from there.

To draw an analogy ... say my car gets wrecked and I file a claim on my insurance company. The insurance company comes back and says "you need to attach a police report and some photographs before we decide whether to pay your claim". That's different from "we don't believe your car suffered any damage, go pound sand".

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[mr.mighty]

Except after reading the judges statements elsewhere in his decision, they'd be better off just letting this one die. If they managed to come up with a list of special damages, then the copyright will have to be decided. The judge seems to have already indicated that decision is not likely to be in favour of SCO. If SCO is found to not have the copyrights, then they don't have a case in the Redhat, IBM, Novell or AutoZone cases.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Kiyooka]

What's the big surprise? SCO knows they're screwed, but what do you expect them to do? Tell the PR person to go out crying and start apologizing to investors? They have to fight to the end because everything's at stake, and without an image of confidence investors will run away.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Ohreally_factor]

But they can't just walk away from this, either, because the motion to remand was denied because the case involves federal copyright laws, which basically means that the ownership of the copyrights are in question. With the excpetion of the DC case, ownership of the copyrights is the threshold issue, or at least the first threshold issue. If Novell holds the copyrights, SCO loses the AZ case, most of the IBM case, and probbably the Red Hat case.

If SCO is able to prove that they own the copyrights*, it doesn't mean they automatically win the other cases. They still have to prove that Linux infringes on their copyright. They've signaled that they plan to use a unique interpretation of derivative works to prove this, rather than actually indicating the SysV code in Linux (because it's not there).

The upshot of this is that it's pretty safe to predict that SCO will lose. Just don't expect a quick victory. This is the legal system, after all.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[ignavus]

Hey, they came second. They get a silver medal.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Mycroft_VIII]

I fight my own tickets as well.
Just remember one thing. In small towns the judge IS going to rule against you unless you have major evidence (like videotape of the officer beating you with a wisky bottle after emptying it in one swallow or some such). His sallary is largly from your tickets. Personally I think that's a conflict of intrest.
I advise saving somthing for the trial de novo or apeal or whatever it is in your area.
I've had to do that once. I noticed up front the prossecuting attorney's attitutde like she couldn't loose and figured she new the fix was in.
Even when I pointed out the car I was driving at the time wasn't capable of such speeds ( VERY tiny engine 1.3 liter) and wasn't even firing on all cylinders properly (even had the bad sparkplug as evidence) she just kept repeatedly asking the same idiot questions of the officer. did he have occasion to observe a blue ford aspire. and so on.
Now this was at night on a dark road, and the officer was parked facing the other way and had to backtrack (median in way) and turn around and catch up to the car he clocked, that was out of his sight for some distance. several cross streets later.
Judge basically said 'he's got no reason to lie, you do, you pay'. stupid and clearly not right.
Needless to say the next judge didn't find someone who claimed to be able tell color in the dark, be absolutely certain it was same car despite plenty of oportunity to turn off out of the cops view, and the failing condition of my car, very good reasons to believe the officer over me.
And still no points on my record.

Mycroft

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[mwa]

True, but I'm starting to think "reader of Groklaw" > "SCO lawyer". The former definitely has better research.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one, would like to welcome our new mold overlords!

BANG!

~$ !!

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[glk572]

in my state you have to call the officer to testify. Basically the only thing presented at the court as evidence is the ticket and police report.

Also all three of my traffic court cases have been in front of a county commissioner, (who's just pissed that it's their turn to sit in traffic court, and just wants to go home) or better yet a judge "pro-tem" (a lawyer learning to be a judge). I was in court with a pro-tem he was hours behind on the docket, and dismissed every single case. It was cool.

After seeing people hang themselves out to dry by calling the officer as a witness, or worse yet the guy with the state police who calibrates the radar guns; I know I don't want anyone there to contradict my version of the events.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[SillySlashdotName]

Paraphrasing the combatants as I understand their positions:

TSG wanted this case in state court "because we clearly own the copyrights - there is no copyright question involved, only a contract violation."

Judge Kimball said that TSG had not shown that they "clearly" own the copyrights. Therefore, there is a copyright question so the case is in the proper court and remains in federal court. Motion to remand DENIED.

Novell said that, because the case is in the proper court to make decisions on the case, the case should be thrown out because TSG CLEARLY didn't own the copyrights, and so the "make a false statement" part of the Slander of Title case was not satisfied.

Judge Kimball said that just as the evidence does not support TSGs claim of "clearly" owning the copyrights, it also does not "clearly" support a claim that they DON'T own them - that claim would have to be clarified in court - so the motion to dismiss on the "false statement" is DENIED.

Novell also claimed that TSG failed in another important point in that they did not specify "special damages" correctly, and the case should be thrown out.

Judge Kimball said Novell is correct, TSG did not meet the requirements of specifying special damages when filing a Slander of Title suit, and the Motion to dismiss is GRANTED. HOWEVER, TSG has 30 days to amend their filing to include "special damages" properly.

Until or unless TSG files proper changes, this case is DISMISSED.

Dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE - i.e., TSG can refile this same suit again against the same people - but the judge has specified that their claim that they purchased copyrights from Novell is legally in doubt and would have to be ruled on after hearing more evidence or after a jury trial. He has also, in my opinion, let them know that they have little in the way of a case based on what they brought to his court...

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Bob Uhl]

Well, that's the whole point of military exercises--to learn lessons. Now, the real question is how often those lessons are learnt. With good officers, always; with piss-poor ones, never. One does hope that over time the ratio of good:poor improves.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Mycroft_VIII]

Hmm, that's odd. In my state, if the PA can't call the cop to the stand (by said officer not being present usually) it's flat out dismissed, failure to prosecute. Frankly If it looked bad for you in your state and the officer wasn't present, I'd ask the judge to toss it. The reasoning being your accuser is not present for you to 'confront' as required by the constitution.

Mycroft

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[mr.mighty]

True. But they can walk away from this particular case. It looks like if they pursue this one (the slander of title), they will be found to have no copyrights very quickly, then no case in the others, after Novell asks for and receives a summary judgement. If they walk away from this case, they can FUD and delay in the other cases for a year or so before they're done. This whole exercise is one of stock manipulation, so if they're still alive in court, they can still spin something to their benefit in the next year.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Ohreally_factor]

Well, I think that if they walk away from this case, Novel can still ask for a declaratory judgement to clear up the question of ownership.

Also, even without a decaratory judgement in this case, Red Hat should have a better chance at shutting down the FUD machine in its court case.

Some have noted that the stock has fallen to under $5, but I think it's still overvalued.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[glk572]

In my state (Washington) there isn't even a prosecutor, just you and the "judge" they read the police report, and you tell your side of the story. If you can cast any doubt, the case is thrown out.

This is just for traffic violations, any actual crime there is a real trial, but for basic stupid stuff like speeding it's just an assembly line. You can even have the entire trial held by mail.

Not Kafkaesk but efficient, and since the burden is on the county to prove you guilty, and there's almost no evidence presented anyway, it's very easy to get any case tossed (in traffic court.)

I can only speak about district court one in pierce county washington; but I'm glad that the district attorney's office has higher priorities than traffic court. I am still amazed that some people don't contest traffic tickets, having been to traffic court 3 times, and having seen at least fifty cases, I have only seen a handful that didn't get thrown out, and those were the only ones where the person chose to have the officer present in court, or call an ill fated expert witness.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Pharmboy]

Reminds me of the old Cold War joke about Pravda. If the US and USSR played a game of basketball, and the US won, Pravda would be proudly proclaiming how the USSR came in second place, but the US came in second from last place.

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[Mycroft_VIII]

Sounds like a better system than what I'm used to here. Provided of course the defendand isn't denied the right (and informed of it) for a proper jury trial and all. I don't think they can convict without a proper trial if the defendand doesn't specifically waive rights.
I can tell you from experience here in Missouri if it's just your word against the officer's word, the judges in small towns tend to side with the officer as a default. This is inapropriate in my opinion as it's de-facto guilty untill innocent and the burden is on the defendand.

Mycroft

Re:Puff, puff, pass...

[tobar mersa]

BANG!

Bring out your dead!
[clang]

and here's the rest of the scene.

Summary of further posts:

[Jonsey]

"They got what they deserved"

"What? They've not been laughed away totally yet?"

"Why did they get off so easy for that much FUD"

Summary of news story: "Judge isn't buying it, put up, or shut up."

one down...

[rokka]

One suit down, 100000000000000000000000000 to go.

Re:one down...

[kunudo]

would that be 67108864 or 1x10^26?

Re:one down...

[sharkey]

One suit down, 100000000000000000000000000 to go.

Take one down, tort it around...

It wasn't dismissed

[TrailerTrash]

RTFA - the request to remand to state court was denied. Novell's motion to dismiss was also denied.

It will be fun to hear the special damages they will come up with. If Novell had not created a "cloud of ownership", they could have what, doubled their SCOsource revenue from $11,000 to $22,000?!?

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[Chmarr]

RTFA - the request to remand to state court was denied. Novell's motion to dismiss was also denied.

Well, technically it IS dismissed, but on the basis of 'failure to plead special damages' and not on the basis of 'falsity'.

However, Novell's motion to dismiss as grated WITHOUT PREJUDICE, meaning that SCO can amend the complaint later, and the judge has explicitly given them 30 days to do so.

So... RTFA right back atcha!

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[Xanthian]

Re-RTFA. The motion to dismiss was denied as to the pleading of falsity, but GRANTED as to the pleading of special damages. SCO has 30 days to come up with some new rantings and ravings as to special damages, or the case IS dismissed.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, you fucking ASS. You were WRONG and now I hope you get modded to HELL.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[TrailerTrash]

The parent article claimed: "and has dismissed the case". The CASE was not dismissed. The Motion To Remand was denied, the Motion To Dismiss was denied based on falsity, and the Motion to Dismiss was granted as to pleading of special damages. The -case- was not dismissed. Nothing was, in fact, dismissed - motions were either denied or granted.

RTFA: Your Volley!

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[robi2106]

Right...

if both motions to dismiss had been granted, then the case would have been dismissed. Each motion was based on a specific part of the case. A part of the case is still in and the other part has been given 30 days to proove itself. That means it, the case, is still alive and kicking.

jason

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[two_center]

I think you got it right. However, dismissal on the basis of 'failure to plead special damages' leaves the copyright ownership question unanswered. SCO loses, but lives to fight another day. A familiar pattern.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[Anonymous Coward]

This is untrue. They failed to plead special damages. Without this, the entire case cannot continue. If they failed to file anything for special damages then this case would be over. It wouldn't stop them from filing more cases, though.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[k12linux]

Apparently, however, they won't be able to use lost SCOsource licensing as special damages. That loss of income would not be ireversible since the licenses could always be purchased later.

Besides, the fact that the judge felt there was uncertainty of copyright transfer means that Novell couldn't have acted with malice. If Novell actually belived it had ownership then there is no slander of title.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[Gabrill]

So, the case "will be" dismissed. I hope the court follows up on this promise better than Novell and SCO followed up on their transfer of copyrights. :)

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[eric76]

Nope.

There are several things that must be shown for a slander of title to succeed. If any one of these are not proven, then the entire claim fails.

What the judge is saying is that even if all of the other elements of a slander of title were proven, SCO's inability to specify specific damages would certainly decide the case in Novell's favor. Thus, there is no need to hear the case at all. For SCO to prevail, they must show specific damages in addition to the other elements.

Therefore, even if SCO prevailed on all the other issues, they would still fail because they of the lack of specific damages.

Under normal circumstances, this decision would be a strong signal to the plaintiff that they should work out some kind of deal with the defendant.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[eric76]

In the decision, the judge clearly indicated his ideas about SCO's chance of prevailing on the ownership of the copyright.

Remember that the same judge is also hearing SCO vs IBM.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[eric76]

My thoughts exactly.

I think that they could claim the interest on the license fees for that difference in time.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[robi2106]

Ahhhhhhh. Thanks for the info...

I think reading that pdf gave me a headache... it was a few hours ago, but my head still hurts....

time to go home fore the weekend.

jason

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, however, they won't be able to use lost SCOsource licensing as special damages. That loss of income would not be ireversible since the licenses could always be purchased later.

That is not correct. Lost SCOsource licensing would be special damages. However, the law says that there must be _specific_ damage. Like finding a (potential) customer who tells the court that they definitely would have paid if Novell had not claimed that SCO has no copyright.

Same with the cost of lawyers which SCO claimed as special damages. These idiots just forgot to tell the court _specifically_ what damages there were. They could have just said "We were forced to pay $10000 to our lawyer to take on this case because of Novells action". Of course this would be laughed out of court during the case, but it would have been enough to have the case not dismissed. Remember, when the judge decides whether to dismiss or not, he has to assume that everything SCO says is true. But no, SCO's claim did not contain any _specific_ claims for damages, only general vague descriptions of damages. That's why Novell got their dismissal.

But in the second part you are absolutely right. There is uncertainty about the copyright transfer (in my opinion not enough to give SCO a chance in hell to get the copyrights, but just enough to get the case not dismissed), so Novell could have reasonably believed that they have the copyright. Even if they were wrong and SCO does indeed own the copyrights, there would be no slander.

Re:It wasn't dismissed

[Ohreally_factor]

No the case IS dismissed, but the judge is allowing SCO 30 days to amend the complaint and refile. This is the meaning of the phrase "without prejuduce".

Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Supp0rtLinux]

Personally I'd rather not see any of the cases (SCO vs. IBM... SCO vs. Novell... SCO vs. RedHat) dismissed. After all, a dismissed case can always be redone later. Personally, I'd rather see the cases and trials move on and see the truth told and *hopefully* IBM and Novell win. At least then we don't have a *what if* hanging over our heads.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Chmarr]

After all, a dismissed case can always be redone later.

That is true only if it is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Which in this case it is.

However, if the judge then says DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, then that's it... the plaintiff cannot refile.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Supp0rtLinux]

Not necessarily. According to the eWeek article, SCO was denied on its motion to have the case moved to a state court instead of a federal one. Even if a federal judge dismisses with prejudice, SCO can start a new fight in state court. Besides, they could always make new accusations that are just slightly different than the originals... in which case its considered an entirely new case and the with prejudice won't be applicable.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[afidel]

Nah, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE just means you can't refile on that exact same damage. SCO can find things to sue about for years to come if they have cash. To be truely done with them they either have to run out of money or the parties they are suing have to win an injunction against SCO baring them from bringing suit against a named list of potential litigants.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Supp0rtLinux]

Just wait til SCO discovers that Microsoft's new HPC server uses technology from Linux (which according to SCO has illegal UNIX code in it) and then determines that Microsoft's UNIX license only covers the use of real UNIX and not UNIX illegally contributed to Linux and therefore Microsoft's use of Linux technologies to make their HPC server violates SCOs alleged copyrights. Once Microsoft starts making a profit from its HPC server, then SCO can sue them despite their UNIX license. Kind of circular, I know, but SCO isn't exactly known for using logic, common sense, and reason of late.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[squistle]

Actually, not all dismissed cases can be refiled. If it is dismissed without prejudice, as this one was, they can refile the suit, and in fact the judge went so far as to say they have 30 days to do so. If he had dismissed it with prejudice, the case would be completely thrown out and could not be refiled.

There is also another opportunity which the judge hinted at in his order and which PJ at Groklaw pointed out. He said that he cannot completely throw the case out at the dismissal stage, but that Novell had made some persuasive arguments. The hint is that once SCO amends its complaint, Novell should file for a summary judgement. That will produce a ruling on the case's merits (or lack thereof).

You're right, we don't really want a dismissal. We really want a judgement, and I would expect Novell will ask for exactly that in the very near future.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but SCO licensed technology to Microsoft, and Microsoft licensed technology to SCO, keeping Microsoft "legal" in SCO's eyes (and allowing some FUD to be generated for SCO) and SCO having licensed Microsoft's technoogy keeps the antitrust dogs at bay, because Microsoft is "sharing".

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[drinkypoo]

Running out of money doesn't so the job unless their assets are granted to one of these companies in lieu of damages in some other suit, because anyone who later buys them takes on any rights they may have had.

On the other hand, it's possible that SCO may end up so legally encumbered by this farce that no one will ever touch them with any length pole...

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[silicon not in the v]

Well, I would say the Novell case can be dismissed without much issue because that would squarely decide that Novell owns the copyrights. The IBM case can then continue, and I hope goes all the way since it involves contesting the GPL, and claims of tainted code in Linux.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if the judge then says DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, then that's it... the plaintiff cannot refile.

That is only true when the case is dismissed with EXTREME PREJUDICE. That's when the Judge, as Jury and Executioner, shoots the plantiff and the plantiff's lawyer. That's how to permanently prevent them from ever refiling..

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Goobermunch]

Well, that's unless the doctrines of Collateral Estoppel or Res Judicata kick in. Remember that there's a large part of the rules of Civil Procedure that require a party to bring all of their claims at the same time.

--AC

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[KilobyteKnight]

SCO can find things to sue about for years to come if they have cash.

Well, spending $4,000,000 to make $11,000 (as the groklaw article reports) is not a substainable business model. They're spending 36,000% of their income on lawsuits.

Wow... say it with me... thrity-six-thousand-percent.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[the_quark]

I may be wrong about this (I haven't followed these cases closely enough, and SCO doesn't seem to be sticking with a totally consistant reasoning on all this), *but*...

My understanding of SCO's case against IBM is that IBM took code A (involving NUMA) and mixed it with code licensed from SCO (call that code B) and released it (call that combo Code C) which via some novel copyright theory now means that SCO also has an exclusive right to code A and so IBM no longer has the right to take code A and release it under the GPL for inclusion with Linux.

As far as I know, SCO isn't challenging the GPL directly in its IBM fight. Mostly its IBM case is, "We have the copyright to code B, because we got it from Novell, and your release of code A under the GPL is a violation of our copyrights of code B, because we now own the copyright to code A as well since you distributed it as code C. Oh, and, since you're still distributing code C after we told you to stop, and since we own the copyright to code B (since we bought it from Novell), you're clearly and unquestionably violating our copyright on code B, too."

Leaving aside the utterly laughable nature of their claim on code A, the lynchpin of SCO's case seems to be that they own the copyrights to code B. If they don't (i.e., if Novell does, which is what the judge here seems to be saying he thinks is the case), then IBM didn't violate copyrights by distributing code B after SCO told them to stop. Even worse (for SCO), even if you buy their ridiculous copyright threories on code A, if they don't own the copyright to code B to begin with, those fall apart, too.

So, in summary, if the courts say "Novell owns the copyrights to Unix, SCO doesn't," then I'd expect all other copyright-related defendants in all other cases (including IBM) to file for (and receive) summary dismissal in their copyright cases. If SCO doesn't have the copyrights, it doesn't have standing to sue for their illegal release, even if such release did occur illegally.

If anyone else understands this better than I, I would be very happy to have it clarified. But that's my understanding right now.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Novell case issue is wether SCO owns the copyrights or not. If it's dismissed, they still have to prove they own the rights, which the judge has stated is dubious on the face of the arguments.

However, the IBM case has the nazgul explicitly attempting to get SCO to show the meat of the matter - actual probable infringment. Wether or not SCO owns the copyrights, they have to prove infringement, which thay have been unable to do.

What we are looking for is an IBM win, which declares Linux problem free from unix infringement irregardless of who owns what rights to unix.

Daimler-Chrysler and Autozone are side issues that would be reduced to dust with an IBM win.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Collateral Estoppel or Res Judicata

That's legal Latin for "Put a cork in it or I'll go judgement on your ass", right?

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[dacarr]

I'd mod you up, but I think I'm out of points.

Point here though is that you can sue for just about anything - however, whether you win is left as an exercise to the courts.

Re:Please don't let it get dismissed...

[Kiyooka]

it's ok if you have a cool 60 billion backing you.

Yet another deadline

[blockhouse]

Yet another deadline? We've seen this kind of thing before. Let's not get our panties in a bunch just yet, this is not over yet. Not by a long shot.

Call me when the case is dismissed, and the dismissal is upheld on appeal. Guess we'll be waiting for a long time.

Matter of fact, don't call me until SCO goes through Chapter 7 bankruptcy and ceases operations, cause it's only then that this monster will be dead and buried.

Re:Yet another deadline

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Oh no. These companies are like horror movie monsters. No matter how thoroughly you kill them, someone buys up their IP and in a few years decides to try to sue the world at large themselves.

SCO vs. IBM is just an attempt to re-try USL vs. Berkely. If SCO goes under before being hammered flat in the court system it'll be Wayland/Yutani vs. the Linux Developers Guild in 2013.

Re:Yet another deadline

[Anonymous Coward]

If SCO goes under before being hammered flat in the court system it'll be Wayland/Yutani vs. the Linux Developers Guild in 2013.

Or worse, OSDL takes control of the rights itself and swears to guard them for all eternity. But then rumours start circulating that a mysterious hooded figure is initiating lawsuits against the innocent.

The rate the legal systems moves out we could be 5 years into the lawsuits before OSDL has to come to terms with the fact that it has been possesed by the spirit of SysV and is its own enemy, hiring bad evil lawyers by night and good (okay slightly less evil) ones by day.

Re:Yet another deadline

[JohnMajor]

". . . the Linux Developers Guild"

If I get a cloak, a tattered scroll and a dagger I'm in!

finally something happened

[Da_Slayer]

Finally one of the lawsuits had some form of resolution. Only time will tell how this ruling will affect the other cases and the overall direction of Open Source litigation.

So the case is going to stay in Federal Court and SCO is not backed into a corner with non-favorable conditions in which they have to fight this battle.

Most of us hope that SCO just gets bitch slapped and the disappear into the night and never return. =)

SCO is the suxx0rz

[rice_burners_suck]

Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case

Yes!!! Yes!!! SCO is going DOWN baby!!!

but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements.

Noooooooo!!!!!!! Arrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!!!! Don't give 'em any more time--they're going to use it to stretch this bullshit even longer!!!!

***

Ok, seriously now, I think that each of SCO's cases is going to get thrown out one-by-one, and when SCO has to start paying others' legal fees (I can't wait until they have to pay IBM's), they are going to disappear, without accomplishing what Microsoft wants them to accomplish, which is to screw the Linux community over. I think they will accomplish the exact opposite, which is giving lots and lots and lots of free advertising worldwide to Linux, and then when SCO loses all these cases, it will prove to the world that Linux is legitimate, and Microsoft will have screwed themselves over. Nanny nanny boo boo!!!

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[3n1gm4]

I think they are accomplishing exactly what Microsoft wants, they are making companies hesitate in going to a broad Linux platform change while they wotk on their new licensing and integration plans. Microsoft is very vulnerable in that they haven't been able to answer the security issues as well as finishing their next platform. Even a months delay is worth a lot to Microsoft.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say the're doing exactly what microsoft want, keeping peoples eyes off them, so they can lauch the patent suits later.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[rajafarian]

... without accomplishing what Microsoft wants them to accomplish, which is to screw the Linux community over."

I respectfully disagree, sir. I that the goal was "only" to create FUD: "Look, if you use Linux, you could get sued, why even Daimler-Chrysler got sued..." Nevermind that even Micros~1 gets sued and nevermind all the SCO lawsuits will be thrown out. Pure FUD. Methinks when Longhorn comes out, half the ads will say, "Do you want to risk your business getting sued??? Buy Longhorn!!!"

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Compuser]

You may be right. There is a rule that any publicity
is good publicity. Fact is, until this whole thing
it looked like Linux was a plaything not matched
against REAL Unices. Then those morons come out and
claim that Linux is industrial strength and how can
that have happened so fast. Then all these big corps
start throwing major money at Linux defense with
HP going so far as to indemnify customers. Now the
perception is that Linux is indeed big and capable
and has major commercial backing. If nothing else
this has forced many players in the field to
declare their stand.
This has also led to a reexamination of code submission
procedures. Now rogue code will be harder to slip
into Linux (at least kernel).
So if the intention was to damage Linux then this
has done the exact opposite methinks. The one thing
that remains to be seen is whether IBM is willing
to use its patent portfolio to pressure Microsoft
not to suffocate F/OSS with its patents. If this
is the case then full-blown OS competition may be
right around the corner.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Anonymous Coward]

Noooooooo!!!!!!! Arrrrgggghhhhhhhhh!!!! Don't give 'em any more time--they're going to use it to stretch this bullshit even longer!!!!

Which is EXACTLY what we want, Grasshopper.

The longer they are tied up spending all their cash and legal muscle in these dead-end cases, the less they will have for (a) other cases later and (b) business of any kind after these cases fail.

Quick judgements actually work in their favor. Don't put it past Darl & Co to come up with something else obnoxious after they loose these. We want their funds completly dry.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Chagrin]

...when SCO has to start paying others' legal fees...

The idea is, when SCO has to start paying other's legal fees, there will be no money left.

/obvious

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[FFFish]

Riiiiight... companies are hesitating to use Linux.

Like McDonalds. 30000 fast food shops. Just decided to go Linux.

(Though i can't imagine why they didn't choose a BSD, which is far more mature, robust, and secure.)

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[finkployd]

I think they are accomplishing exactly what Microsoft wants, they are making companies hesitate in going to a broad Linux platform change while they wotk on their new licensing and integration plans.

Then why does all evidence suggest otherwise? This suit is not causing companies to abandon Linux, they are sticking with it in droves and more and more companies are looking to it.

If anything this has given Linux more credibility by getting the name out there.

Finkployd

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Gabrill]

McDonalds doesn't want things that are mature, robust, and secure. Just look at their average employee.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[lspd]

This has also led to a reexamination of code submission procedures. Now rogue code will be harder to slip into Linux (at least kernel).

At the very least it's provided a counterpoint to the "nobody is complaining" excuse for licensing laxness. Someone, somewhere, someday is bound to try and make a buck off complaining. Of course, code is easy to track in comparison to video/audio/graphics/etc. There are many instances where free software developers have grabbed images or graphics off the net and incorporated it into their otherwise clean projects. Hopefully more developers are beginning to realize that truely free software requires proof that all the various bits are really free. A few years back this would have been regarded as anal-retentive (Debian/FSF/RedHat/etc) Now it's a necessity.

The one thing that remains to be seen is whether IBM is willing to use its patent portfolio to pressure Microsoft not to suffocate F/OSS with its patents.

I think it's safe to say that free software is screwed if the current patent situation isn't reversed. Microsoft doesn't need to attack free software with patents. It can simply wait for all the goofy little patent lawsuit business to start looking at free software developers for ways to make a buck. Microsoft can afford to pay off these folks, free software developers can't. Imagine the SCO scenario repeated again and again over patents. Microsoft licenses the patent, free software developers can't or won't, so they get sued.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Anonymous Coward]

i can't imagine why they didn't choose a BSD,

Maybe they didn't want something that's dying.

which is far more mature, robust, and secure.

Bullshit. References, please?

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[rice_burners_suck]

(Though i can't imagine why they didn't choose a BSD, which is far more mature, robust, and secure.)

Heh, we don't know, maybe they chose FreeBSD. Unfortunately, though, FreeBSD doesn't have the widespread brand name recognition that Linux has, because it's not all over the news, and it's not the subject of all the bullshit SCO lawsuits. So, if the computer geek department is rolling out FreeBSD, they might tell the management that this is "Linux" (and with the Linux compatibility layer loaded, it can run Linux programs), so that the PHBs and shareholders will have an idea of what's going on. To them, it's probably all the same thing anyway.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Pentagram]

Hey, is line wrapping in your browser broken or are you trying to write in free verse? :/

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I agree with what you said after "Noooooo!!!..."

I am glad that the judge gave SCO every chance to kill themselves. It's good for linux.
1. SCO can't argue against the trial proceeding due to a biased judge after he gave SCO chances after chances.
2. The longer the trial goes, the more money SCO has to spend. Total, thorogh and complete destruction of SCO is what we want.
3. The longer the trial goes, the more chances all the stinking back alley dealing with Microsoft to come out. SCO is not the only linux opponent here. If Microsoft is proven to play dirty using SCO's hands, then there might be another case filed against Microsoft.
4. The longer the trial goes, the more chances Darl et al. have to make fools of themselves. They are already the laughing stock in the investment communities.
5. News after news regarding SCO's loss is good for linux. That makes people think twice before they believe SCO's (and Microsoft's) claims.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[mr.mighty]

Actually, I'm hoping that Microsoft comes in to top up their legal fund. I'd like to see all these cases settled once and for all. If SCO goes belly-up beforehand, people will point to it as the little guy getting screwed over by IBM. Let the court system screw them instead.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[HeadDown]

Probably for pretty much the same reason people/
bussinesses choose Windows over Unix: support, and
traction in the market. While BSD may or may not
be better (and you really need to define your needs
and goals before you can evaluate what 'better' means in your context),
it is a lot easier to get support from a large number of
companies, among which some very reputable, and let's not
forget the friendly neighbourhood unix geek. He's
a lot more likely to know about Linux than BSD these days.

Re:SCO is the suxx0rz

[Progman3K]

>[...] what Microsoft wants, they are making companies hesitate in going to a broad Linux platform change while they wotk on their new licensing and integration plans

That can only work in favour of Linux; precisely because all these claims will progressively be proven false, Linux will emerge as the only operating system that is truly free, which CAN'T be said of Windows!

In fact, the way Microsoft's licensing is made, people are leaving them in droves; flat quarter after flat quarter, time is catching up with Microsoft, try as they might, how long before their layoffs begin?

They only succeed in confirming what everyone already knows; the day of closed-source, bug-bearing, exploit laced, restrictive, unethical software and business practices are OVER!

And even the bunch of them taking a bus on a tour won't change it; they only have one agenda, and (as usual) they are totally unable to hide it.

Not over yet

[slusich]

I think we can count on the clowns at SCO to continue to drag this thing out. This may be the begining of the end, but it's still a long way from over.

PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

Give us some warning when linking to a PDF file, please. It's very annoying to try to open it in a new tab, have it download instead, and end up with a file that opens in xpdf as 21 blank pages!

Re:PDF

[afidel]

Sounds like something's broken with your setup. I middle click on a pdf and acrobat plugin starts downloading the pdf in a new tab, and even in the background =) I assume xpdf can be made to do the same thing if setup correctly.

Re:PDF

[IANAAC]

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to hover the mouse over links before I actually click on them for this exact reason.

Re:PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately oftentimes the links are so long as to cause the filename extension not fit in the status bar of the browser.

Looks like it's time for another new rule in the userContent.css file for me:

a[href$=".pdf"]:after { content: " [PDF]" }

Though it still won't resolve the problem with this PDF file coming up as 21 blank pages. There are some things in this company installation I cannot control, the worst being that I am apparently to be the only programmer still running Redhat 6.2. (xpdf v0.90 supports PDF up to version 1.3.)

Re:PDF

[i_r_sensitive]

Or check the link down in the status bar...

Re:PDF

[nitehawk214]

I do too, but because of goatse.

Re:PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to use a browser that behaves properly.

Re:PDF

[SoSueMe]

Re:PDF

[c4Ff3In3 4ddiC]

I have faith in Apple when I click on blind links. (If you don't know what I mean, by default Safari doesn't show the status bar.)

Re:PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

I use xpdf too and I had no problem reading those 21 pages. In fact I think I even understood most of it even though English is not my native language and I do not fully understand all aspects of the US legal system (I am European).

Anyway, I thought your technical problem with opening the PDF in a mozilla tab was just as interesting. It was also something that I had not cared enough to try get working either. Anyway, I thought it would be neat and I had a feeling someone must have already solved it and thus a problem that probably would be easily fixed.

Well, when searching for something, I always remember Google is my friend. In just a few minutes I found out what software was required (plugger), and downloaded, compiled and installed the latest version.

Now I can open PDF-files in a tab using xpdf in mozilla just like the windows people do it with acroread, but not only that. I can now also watch mpeg animations in a mozilla tab, and in a similar way open a bunch of other file formats too. :-)

Just a tip from yet another Anonymous Coward!

Re:PDF

[Prod_Deity]

"Maybe it's just me, but I tend to hover the mouse over links before I actually click on them for this exact reason."

You must be using Internet Explorer.

You know...

[xenostar]

..if you're gonna base all your corporate strategy on lawsuits, you better get your sh*t together and at least make the court deadlines on time.

Re:You know...

[yoshi_mon]

I totally agree. However, they didn't have a case to begin with so...

Re:You know...

[gl4ss]

the corporate strategy is built around APPEARING as if one has lawsuits that could bring in money.. not actually having them.

-(don't ask me how that's supposed to make 'em money)

Re:You know...

[theLOUDroom]

.if you're gonna base all your corporate strategy on lawsuits, you better get your sh*t together and at least make the court deadlines on time.

It's awfully hard to produce things that don't exist by ANY dealine :)

More information on the SCO website

[GillBates0]

Naah, I don't think this news item qualifies for the SCO News Page which is supposed to contain:

SCO in the NEWS
Recent SCO Headlines
News About The SCO Group

As far as SCO is concerned, only FUD like:

SCO beefs up user identity management, vnunet.com
Green Hills Sparks Embedded Linux Security Row, Computer Business Review Online
MoD opts for SCO identity system, vnunet.com
SCO Could Win: Week Two, eWeek.com
Red Hat's case against SCO put on hold, cnet news
IBM ordered to provide SCO with code, documents, ComputerWorld
SCO Should Win, eWeek.com
SCO wins Linux License payments, BBC News
SCO suits target two big Linux users, cnet news
Judge accepts expanded lawsuit, MSNBC

qualifies for their "News" page.

Re:More information on the SCO website

[Mudcathi]

I prefer these headlines, also from SCO's newspage:

SCO issues warning to open-source vigilantes , ZDNet
Revenge Of The Nerds, Forbes
US-based software vendor SCO braces for onlsaught by Mydoom virus, AFP
Worm Attack Shuts Down Web Site, CBSnews.com
SCO waits for MyDoom attacks to end, ZDNet

Re:More information on the SCO website

[Anonymous Coward]

Green Hills Sparks Embedded Linux Security Row, Computer Business Review Online

Wow, Green Hills shares the same opinions as SCO -- big surprise. Gee, I don't suppose that's because Green Hills makes a competiting embedded operating system.

Then again, after being forced to program with INTEGRITY and its brain-damaged development interface for the past fourteen months, I can certainly attest that it has high security; why, even the API documentation and manuals appear to be encrypted.

(Damn right I'm posting anonymously; I'm not done with this project yet.)

Re:More information on the SCO website

[nitehawk214]

I was interested in the SCO Should Win, eWeek.com article, as to what kind of drugs (or payoff) the author was on. However it seems to have disspaeared.

Hmm, not wanting to be associated with a sinking ship do we, eWeek?

Re:More information on the SCO website

[MrBlackBand]

It's still there, and quite a funny read.

Rob Enderle's logic is amusing: "If SCO has no evidence and is in the wrong, why is the company being so viciously attacked?"

Yes, if a company has done something wrong like make groundless acusations against people, then why should it be attacked? If someone robs a bank (is in the wrong) then why should they be denounced by the community and thrown in jail. This guy should be a high-priced defense attorney to the stars.

Then there's this old chesnut: "In the process, the Linux community, in support of IBM, has been duped into using illegal means to attack SCO in the nastiest release of viruses the world has ever seen."

Then there's this howler: "After assessing the following, you can only conclude that SCO should prevail. To take it further, I'd say that, for our common good, SCO must prevail."

And all of this is only on the front page!

I think it's a combination of drugs and payoff.

Know what I learned?

[Otter]

I am so glad IANAL. Can you imagine reading that stuff all day? I started nodding off around the Bear Creek Drainage precedent, and was hitting PageDn pretty quickly even before that.

Even if it is the entree to a lucrative career selling Linux insurance to the paranoid and lazy.

Re:Know what I learned?

[leomekenkamp]

On a similar law-related forum site, a lawyer writes:

I am so glad IANASD (s/w developer). Can you imagine reading that stuff all day? I started nodding off around the 'for(i=0;i<MX_LEN;i++)' stuff, and was hitting PageDn pretty quickly even before that.

Law is in one way similar to software: in Dutch law for instance some words mean different things in different sections of the law system, like '{' has multiple meanings in different languages. There are of course differences as well...

What I want to say is that every occupation has its own lingua franca. Sciences like mathmatics and computer sciences have more formalized and less ambiguous notations than law.

Most here on /. prefer computer languages over 'legalese'.

Re:Know what I learned?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you just scroll to the end it tells you what he decided. The rest is just to pad it out a bit, let the appeals court know he did think about it a little, and show the rest of us that he does actually have to work y'know; it's not just sitting around being called 'your honor' and having nervous lawyers laugh at all your little jokes.

Re:Know what I learned?

[Citizen of Earth]

I am so glad IANAL. Can you imagine reading that stuff all day? I started nodding off around the Bear Creek Drainage precedent, and was hitting PageDn pretty quickly even before that.

And I'm sure that the IAALs out there are saying, "Can you imagine reading source code all day? God, that stuff is tedious!"

Re:Know what I learned?

[shadowcabbit]

Source code does not pretend to be real language, most of the time.

...come to think of it, neither does legalese.

linux in public domain

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be really funny is as soon as SCO goes bankrupt they declare all of linux public domain.

They do this because they can't sell it and they don't want anyone else to profit from it either. (if i can't have it no one can)

Re:linux in public domain

[SoSueMe]

They do this because they can't sell it...
Sure they'll sell it,...to Canopy Group.

Wheels

[alficles]

The Wheels of Justice do grind slowly, but they are grinding in the right direction. IBM, Novell, and all the Good Guys(tm) will eventually win. And then the countersuits will destroy SCO. Hopefully, the countersuits will destroy Darl. Also, we don't want the judge to make a mistake here. If he had thrown the case out, SCO would appeal it back in and things would take even longer. We want IBM/Novell/Good Guys(tm) to win fair and square. It is a clear cut case, they just need to make sure SCO can't claim they were beaten unfairly... because they will anyway. :)

Re:Wheels

[Anonymous Coward]

Using (tm) is no longer vouge. Capitalization should suffice.

Re:Wheels

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh... (tm) never was vouge.

vouge n : a kind of pike used by foot soldiers in the 14th century

Re:Wheels

[silicon not in the v]

And then the countersuits will destroy SCO. Hopefully, the countersuits will destroy Darl.

Are those the blue collar workers who rebel and attack the management?

Worse then sausage.

[killjoe]

They say you should never observe how sausage or laws are made. I wish to amend that to say you should never observe how laws are litigated.

What a shameful display of the american legal system when after a year and half all the court can say is "I'll grant you another extension and the trial won't be till september of 2005".

A five year old would have settled this a year ago.

Re:Worse then sausage.

[Anonymous Coward]

....off hand remark....
SCO managment must not have read up on the Tips for Evil Overlords.

Re:Worse then sausage.

[awkScooby]

What a shameful display of the american legal system when after a year and half all the court can say is "I'll grant you another extension and the trial won't be till september of 2005".

The SCO vs Novell case was filed on January 20, 2004, so that makes this case only 5 months old. They haven't even gotten to discovery yet, but it sounds like there aren't many facts which are disputed.

The legal wrangling to date has largely consisted of SCO trying to get the case moved to State court because the believe it's soley a contractual matter. Novell wants it in federal court, because they feel it's a matter of copyright law.

What has just happened is that the judge ruled that the case belongs in Federal Court, due to the copyright issues. He's also agreed with one of the two Novell arguments for why the case should be dismissed. Rather than dismiss it and have SCO re-file, he's given them 30 days to amend their claim with specifics about damages.

The core question is whether the copyrights were transfered to SCO or not. Both parties agree that the APA is a legitimate document, it's just a matter of how each side is interpreting it. SCO claims that it's sufficient to transfer the copyrights, while Novell claims that it's merely a promise to transfer the copyrights in the future, provided some vague criteria is met.

It's best for all of us if this case is not dismissed. The copyright issue needs to be settled one way or another. If it goes in Novell's favor, most or all of the other cases will collapse. If it turns out that SCO really does own the copyrights, then the other cases will have to play out. Ownership of the copyrights doesn't mean much if there isn't any infringing code (we're waiting for an answer on IBM's request for partial summary judgement). If it turns out that Novell does not own the copyrights, Novell will still probably win the Slander of Title case, because they had to knowingly claim to own the copyrights. Given that the judge isn't even sure at this point if the APA transfers them or not, it would be hard to argue that they knew they were in the wrong. So, Novell wins even if they loose.

mod parent down, false

[Anonymous Coward]

Novell submitted two requests for dismissal; the first one was rejected and the second one was approved. It only takes one.

Here's to hoping they get drawn and quartered

[div_2n]

Cross your fingers whether you are pro-Linux or pro-Microsoft that SCO gets hammered. Because if they win, you can bet the IT industry in the United States (and potentially other countries) is going to suck royally and innovation will take a huge setback.

About the only people that will make money in the short term are a select few corporate types and lawyers.

The rotting corpse of SCO

[locutus2k]

I'll probably get whacked for this, but am I the only one who is tired of hearing about this? It will be nice when this mess is over, and done with. It has been nothing but SCO for months. SCO could stay in business if they foced everyone to pay a royalty whenever their acronym is mentined.

As long as Microsuck doesn't somehow buy SCO out, I for one am tired of caring. If Adolf Gates gets SCO then we can expect this kind of crap to continue until hell freezes over.

Re:The rotting corpse of SCO

[Pikhq]

The only SCO headline I want to see:

SCO files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy,stops operations

Or maybe just:

Darl McBride impaled by Vlad the Impaler, who found time machine in the ground....

:-p

Re:The rotting corpse of SCO

[pr0c]

I highly doubt that Microsoft would ever buy SCO and even if they did they wouldn't be interested in a lawsuit with IBM. Lawsuits are only good for dying companies as a last resort such as SCO who's chief product is UNIX which is obviously dying a slow death because of LINUX, BSDs, et al.

Microsoft is in the business to make money, which they do just fine (obviously) with their current products. Everyone loses in a lawsuit except the lawyers. SCO was already losing, they chose to gamble. Who was the last company Microsoft sued (really sued) with the intention of getting money? Google for "microsoft sued", thats reality. Hell in the majority of lawsuits against Microsoft they just paid and moved on, they are not interested in court... Lawsuits are for little fly-by-night POS operations such as SCO not bluechip companies.

BTW, Microsux, m$ and all the other lame shit to just saying Microsoft is so 90s. How about trying Microsoft, MS, or MSFT? Hell you could even say POS MS or Sucky Microsoft and look more intelligent.

Re:The rotting corpse of SCO

[SoSueMe]

YaHoo Finance reports that, just before the imapling, SCO files suit against Vlad Dracula for IP infringment on Time Travel.

Re:The rotting corpse of SCO

[SoSueMe]

Sorry.
Meant to post the Dracula link.

Article wrong. Slashdot right

[Anonymous Coward]

The eweek article was wrong but slashdot got it right. Let this be a moral to you all.

Thanx

[rootnl]

I and my fellow friends would like thank SCO for the effort they have made to place Linux in the news papers. For them we can only be gratefull. Long live SC.. oh wait, Linux.

Two words...

[Compuser]

July 4

Well...

[zeruch]

...this is certainly a positive development. If we are lucky, this will be an indicator of things to come, as maybe this will snowball into an avalanche of failure for $Stupid_Cretinous_Organization.

The best aspect of this that I can gather is that is puts SCO firmly on the defensive.

Re:Well...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The best aspect of this that I can gather is that is puts SCO firmly on the defensive.

Firmly on the definsive. Is that what you call showing up with a knife to a gunfight these days?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that what you call showing up with a knife to a gunfight these days?

It's true that the plan was to bring a knife but actually Darl brought a plastic spoon by mistake.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no spoon.

I suppose, therein lies SCO's problem.

Re:Well...

[zeruch]

I didn't say they were *bright* and on the defensive. Hell, I didn't say they were bright when they were on the offensive, merely that their orientation has changed.

"SCO left out in the cold by IT industry"

[eddy]

Hilarious.

"That however is where Young and SCO's head Darl McBride leave reality alone and continue with their evangelistic pronouncements which are what have put the company in its sticky situation in the first place."

[...]

But still the company can't stop itself from issuing threats. "If they're willfully not buying licences, the price will be a horrific price," said Young. Why? Because of all the penalties that SCO will add when it has won all its lawsuits. "They run a huge risk. What they're looking at right now is a bet and that bet is going to get more expensive." But every week, the horse is looking more of an outsider.

Just go there and read it. I think the press is going to gang up on SCO and really kick them. What goes up, must come down.

Re:"SCO left out in the cold by IT industry"

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Did SCO hire Bahgdad bob to do press releases... again? There is no Novel victory here. They are committing suicide at the bar!

Re:"SCO left out in the cold by IT industry"

[Anonymous Coward]

That is hilarious -- for the amazingly bad grammar in what purports to be a commercial and professionally edited tech news website, and I'm not talking about the quotes from the SCOid either.

Of course now that I've made a grammar flame I'll have to make grammar error of my own to maintain the balance.

Re:"SCO left out in the cold by IT industry"

[16K Ram Pack]

Makes some of Comical Ali's pronouncements sound serious.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Time Taken

[buckhead_buddy]

People have commented here that they can't understand why it's taken so long to come to this ruling with the facts so clear cut.

Just remember that it's easier for a person to prove they own something than prove that someone else doesn't own it. If SCO had a legal document showing clear ownership they could have had this wrapped up much faster. On the other hand, Novel is saying "We have these documents that do NOT show SCO ownership." which doesn't prove your side; it only disproves the other.

SCO might always find a previously unknown document showing clear copyright conveyance.

Re:Time Taken

[EvilTwinSkippy]

SCO might always find a previously unknown document showing clear copyright conveyance.

And OJ might track down Nicole's real killer.

I would think that before I filed the first brief in a 2 billions dollar lawsuit I would have said paperwork copied a few hundred times, and plate the originals in platnum-iridium.

If there is no paperwork, it didn't happen. If there was paperwork in this case, it should have been the first thing on the evidence table.

Re:Time Taken

[red floyd]

And OJ might track down Nicole's real killer.

Well, he's taking the right tack by searching every golf course in FL. After all, the real killer was known to have been shooting golf balls in OJ's back yard the night of the murder.

Re:Time Taken

[maduro55]

What timing! O.J. recently said he was giving up the search for the one-armed knife-wielding killer. He apparently has run out of greens fees.

Re:Time Taken

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't be that hard. All OJ has to do is look in a mirror.

How did this get past the editors?

[optimus2861]

The case was not dismissed. SCO's motion to remand to state court was dismissed, meaning the court stays in federal court. Novell's motion to dismiss the case was partly denied; what got dismissed was SCO's pleading of "special damages", though the judge did give them 30 days to attempt to restate that claim. What it boils down to is that SCO has to prove in federal court that the UNIX copyrights it purports to own were in fact transferred, since copyright is a federal issue, not a state issue. SCO wanted the case heard strictly as a contract case in state court and did not want to have to prove it owned the copyrights.

There's a link to groklaw right in the article, for pete's sake. A cursory visit to the website would reveal the writeup is grossly misleading.

Re:How did this get past the editors?

[RobertJLove]

Yep, looks like there was a mistake sorry Darl. :-)

Re:How did this get past the editors?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the last paragraph of the "B. Special Damages" section of the ruling as posted at Groklaw (right before the "Conclusion" section):

"Accordingly, Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim for failure to specifically plead special damages is granted without prejudice."

The case has been DISMISSED since they did not meet the legal requirements for the type of case they filed. Good Judge Kimball has specifically granted them 30 days to fix their complaint and try again, although, as PJ points out, he hints pretty strongly that they should file for Summary Judgement and would probably win the case on those grounds.

Their request for the case to be dismissed on reasons of falsity was denied, their request to have it dismissed as inadequately pled was GRANTED. The conclusion section also reads that way. They didn't have to win both of them, just one in order for the case to be dismissed.

Re:How did this get past the editors?

[ed__]

well your comment got past the editors because no one edits comments. the case was dismissed (w/o prejudice) because SCOG failed to plead special damages.

hth.

"""
Accordingly, Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim for failure to specifically plead special damages is granted without prejudice.
"""

and

"""
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.
"""

Re:How did this get past the editors?

[PetoskeyGuy]

How did this get past the editors?

You must be new here. A yodeling sasquatch with his hair on fire could get past the editors without them noticing that it's the third time this month it went by.

Re:How did this get past the editors?

[Marble68]

Some say it's dismissed and use this to "prove" it:

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.

IANAL, but from what I can tell, it looks like:

a) SCO was made a motion to remand (move) the case to state court. That was DENIED. Did they have to make this motion because of rules?

b) Novell made a motion to dismiss SCO's claim of "special damages." This was UPHELD, but SCO was given 30 days to "try again."

c) Novell made a motion to dismiss SCO's claim of falsity and it was DENIED.

According to the Groklaw link, it also says:

Judge Kimball says he can't grant Novell's motion to dismiss at this stage, but he clearly has a leaning, and it isn't in SCO's direction. It's just that on a motion to dismiss, the judge is required to construe all facts in the light most favorable to the party whose case might be dismissed, the non-moving party, and on the Motion to Dismiss, that would be SCO, and as a matter of law, he can't grant the motion to dismiss in totality, because while "Novell has raised persuasive arguments as to whether a sufficient writing exists" without more evidence, he can't rule on the sufficiency of the agreement yet.

So, it's not dismissed in whole from what I can tell. In other words, it's not over yet.

Only certain motions were dismissed...

It helps if you think of motions as mini suits or rounds in a boxing match.

SCO 1 and Novell 1 on Novell's motions of dismissal (falcity and 'special damages').

I've heard arguments on the motion to remand.
One being that SCO wants a federal venue, so it's a victory?
Haven't seen anyone present a case as to why they wanted to remand the case to a state court.

Am I reading this right?

Re:How did this get past the editors?

[Cletus the yokel]

In a slander of title case there must be a valid claim of special damages. Since SCO didn't adequately plead this claim, the case IN WHOLE is dismissed due to the aformentioned ruling granting Novell's motion to dismiss on the Plaintiff's pleading of special damages.

So, for the umpteenth time, this thing is FRICKIN' DISMISSED!

Re:How did this get past the editors?

[Marble68]

I think I see.

So, no damages nor a ruling can even be granted in a claim of falsity exist without 'special damages'?
In other words, one cannot exist without the other, right?

So, if SCO doesn't come back in 30 days with a valid 'special damages' claim, the whole thing goes flat, eh?

Thanks for the insight, and I'll pass on the disdainful comments...

Re:How did this get past the editors?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if SCO doesn't come back in 30 days with a valid 'special damages' claim, the whole thing goes flat, eh?

And remember, 'special damages' must be actual, monetary damages; i.e., SCOG must demonstrate they actually lost money because of Novell's claims. Not just that they might have lost money.

The Small Victories.....

[michael path]

One small step for Man, One giant leap for Mand----

Re:It wasn't dismissed (YES IT WAS)

[djtrainwreck]

From Judge: "Accordingly, Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim for failure to specifically plead special damages is granted without prejudice." Also: CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.

Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the hell did a post that contains the words "Nanny nanny boo boo!!!" get modded as interesting?

Re:Question:

[Dav3K]

At least it wasn't modded Insightful...

Technicality: TSCOG instead of TSG

[Anonymous Coward]

The Santa Cruz Operation Group.

Keep it at least consistent, if we're to lazy and abbreviate everything.

Re:Technicality: TSCOG instead of TSG

[Valdrax]

Technically, after Caldera bought the Santa Cruz Operation, it renamed itself SCO without any acronym to back the three letters. SCO doesn't mean anything now, so TSG is appropriate.

Also, after enough common usage, many acronyms can themselves become parts of other acronyms. LASER is an acronym, yet "LAser Detection And Ranging" is abbreviated LADAR, not LASERDAR.

Re:Technicality: TSCOG instead of TSG

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, after enough common usage, many acronyms can themselves become parts of other acronyms. LASER is an acronym, yet "LAser Detection And Ranging" is abbreviated LADAR, not LASERDAR.


Actually, it's LIDAR, "LIght Detection And Ranging"
A ladder is something you don't walk under.

Laser, "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation" is sometimes thought to mean 'lased light' ... thus proving that an acronym can become a word. (the verb, to lase)

But I thought...

[Atario]

The Smoking Gun has 30 days to come up with something...and they always deliver.

Oh. Oh oh oh. The Sco Group...never mind!

Re:But I thought...

[whmac33]

It took me a while because I was confused about what the smoking gun had to do with this, didn't care enough though to actually figure out what TSG stood for in this summary. Thanks for the info :)

Re:But I thought...

[Mick Ohrberg]

Well, TSG = The SCO Group or The Smoking Gun. Maybe we can start using them interchangeably. Wouldn't it be funny if we got some new terminology out of this whole thing? If a company is suing another company on very dubious and loose grounds, they could be said to have pulled 'a SCO'. Or if someone stubbornly sticks to his or her guns, even though it has been proven many many times that they are wrong, they pulled an 'AdTI'.

Heh.

Re:But I thought...

[Ohreally_factor]

Dude, you smell like Ken Brown climbed up your ass and died.

Read again.

[djtrainwreck]

Judge Kimball:

"Accordingly, Novell's motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim for failure to specifically plead special damages is granted without prejudice."

And the Conclusion:

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.

Quick ...

[vlad_petric]

Borrow SCO shares. Borrowing shares is the way of making money when you predict the stock price will go down. You basically get shares, dump them, and after a pre-established period, re-purchase them and give them back to the original owner. If the stock goes down, you make money. If it went up, you'd lose.

From a moral perspective, by borrowing shares now you'd be making money of the people who bet against Linux.

Re:Quick ...

[red floyd]

It's called "Shorting". And ISTR that NASDAQ rules prevent shorting a stock when it's below 5.

Plus, there are no shortable shares available.

Re:Quick ...

[grammar nazi]

There is no moral perspective to shorting shares (unless you are acting on material insider information and your local regulating authority [SEC?] won't allow you to act on that particular information). When you buy shares, you are speculating that the stock has a good value. When you sell shares, you are speculating that the stock is not as good a value. Whether or not you own the shares before you sell (selling shares you already own versus shorting shares you don't own) makes no difference.

You won't be making money from people who bet against linux. You will be making money from people who bought the SCO shares you sold... poeple who think SCO stock has a good value. I suspect this has little to do with Linux.

Finally, the grammar nazi takes offense to the story: "Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements." I've been around Slashdot long enough to realize the futility of pointing out stories' grammatical errors... but Dammit! A run-on sentience is a run-on sentence, and it pisses off the grammar nazi to no end.

Novell

[buckhead_buddy]

What happens if there's a management turnover at Novel and the new guys in charge decide to take up the SCO litigation business model only with the added benefit that these decisions show they own the copyrights?

In some ways I find it bothersome that these cases are being fought along lines other than "Can someone who's worked on or licensed Unix ever legally contribute to Open Source".

Yes, I realize that it's an insane from the perspective of a computer scholar, but that doesn't mean that court rulings could change the legal reality.

It's great that SCO is being euthanized from these legal proceedings, but recall that it wasn't too long ago that SCO was an big open source ally and proponent. Will Novel be next to fall to bad management, investment pandering, and absurd legal advice?

Re:Novell

[djtrainwreck]

This is exactly why IBM hasn't brought forth any of the SCO/Novel issues in the SCO/IBM case.

IBM has been very careful that it's case deals with Linux infringing on any of the code SCO asserts is infringing.

Basically, IBM's case does not hinge on Novels case. SCO could win that hands down and it will not help them win their case against IBM. Really, SCO's case against IBM is boiling down to a pure contract claim that twists the idea of derivative rights.

Re:Novell

[Ender Ryan]

Novell executives have stated that they own the copyrights, and they belive that Linux does not in any way infringe upon them. Novell would be even less capable of saying, "But we didn't know!"

Re:Novell

[pjrc]

What happens if there's a management turnover at Novel and the new guys in charge decide to take up the SCO litigation business model only with the added benefit that these decisions show they own the copyrights?

To prevail in a copyright infringement suit, you need to prove two things:

1. You own the copyright
2. The copyrighted material was copied or distributed by the defendant

SCO's having trouble on both. Fail either one and they lose.

Proving #2 is going to be nearly impossible for anyone in the future if IBM wins summary judgement or judgement at trial on their 10th counterclaim. Likewise, if Redhat wins.

Attempting to sue before these are decided may allow scumbags to spread a lot of hype, but any such case would probably be stayed until the IBM and Redhat cases are settled.

Darl McBride on the BBC

[ctid]

I just caught the end of a Darl McBride interview on the BBC. Unfortunately reception was a bit poor, but what I think he said was,

"And I for one welcome our new Novell overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted CEO, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground SUSE caves."

Spin-meisters

[eddy]

Oh, they're real little spin-meisters. Check this one out:

"Hatch was also satisfied with Kimball's decision to have the case remain in federal court rather than remanded to state court."

'That's a good thing because the ruling precludes Novell from using jurisdiction as a delay tactic later on should the case turn bad for Novell.'" -- Brent Hatch, cited in the Daily Herald

You couldn't make shit like this up!

"Oh, we're sooo happy with the ruling. This is great for us. We really wanted to get our claims dismissed. Yes sir. That was the plan all al.. LOOK A WOOKIE!!!!"

sometimes fun: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX

[timothy]

Right now, the top 5 headlines listed are:

STREET WISE: Little Cheer for SCO Shareholders

SCO Group Posts Loss

SCO posts loss vs profit; revenue down 52 pct

SCO Group Stumbles on Revenue Drop

SCO Keeps Sinking

Now, a) companies have come back from way below where SCO is now b) crazy legal judgements may declare D. McBride Emperor of the U.S. without significantly decreasing the sanity level of the whole system c) it's not nice to be vindictive.

However, one of my favorite slogans is "Humble to the humble, unyielding to the arrogant." Darl falls into the second category to me, since he would like, on what seem to be wildly spurious suppositions and with dirty tactics worthy of Ayn Rand's slimiest villains, to take away the Free software I use every day.

timothy

Re:Has anyone read the groklaw article?

[ebrandsberg]

and if you read further, you find that it WAS dismissed, but on other grounds. Read the whole thing.

Erik

Case dismissed ; Sco gets 30 day leave

[djtrainwreck]

Judge grants "Novells motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim for failure to specifically plead special damages is granted without prejudice".

But, also grants "SCO thirty days leave to amend its Complaint to plead special damages specifically in accord with Rule 9(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure".

Because, if it dismissed without prejudice, SCO will probably just change it's pleadings and file another lawsuit. But, if they can't change their pleadings in accordance with Rule 9(g), then they could be dismissed with prejuduice.

INL I ROBOT

Re:Case dismissed ; Sco gets 30 day leave

[reimero]

If you read the commentary buried somewhere deep on Groklaw and learn enough legalese to read between the lines, the judge hinted to Novell that a future motion for summary judgment might be in their best interests, indeed, he made it sound like a major summary judgment ruling would be forthcoming - if Novell requests it. And THAT could be the end of it.

tech support

[Anonymous Coward]

Call and press 2 for tech support, it will be busy (do they even have employees answering the phones still?) and then leave a message expressing your concern for their terrible product and how it offers no value to the customer. They are egotistic and self-centered and have no concern for giving value to the customer.

Africa +353 (0) 1260 6300
Americas 1 (800) 726-8649 (831) 427-6730
Europe +353 (0) 1260 6300
Middle East +353 (0) 1260 6300
Pacific Rim 1 (800) 726-8649 (831) 427-6730

What about EXTREME prejudice ?

[LordPixie]

IANAL, but from what I've seen in the theatres, "extreme prejudice" usually involves someone getting shot repeatedly. If not, they're instead blasted into a fine pink mist.

Assuming the US legal system uses the same terminology as action movie characters, I'm thinking "DISMISSED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE" might be the best outcome in regards to SCO.


--LordPixie

We all know

[BCW2]

What Darl is swimming in, and the cesspool just gets deeper and deeper. When he goes under for the third time, someone please throw him an anvil.

SCO stock

[Nonillion]

Did you just hear something go CRASH!

Judges' profile

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge Dale A. Kimball grew up on a dairy farm in Draper, Utah. Those early mornings milking cows taught him the importance of responsibility. He quickly learned that if he didn't do his job, there would be a barn full of unhappy cows and a house full of unhappy parents. In addition to his barnyard responsibilities, Judge Kimball also worked in the fields, where the family raised alfalfa, sugar beets, and grain. He faithfully worked on the family farm throughout his schooling, including law school. These experiences also taught Judge Kimball the importance of working hard, working smart, and finishing tasks on time.

See here

Wall Street Closed

[kitzilla]

SCO best be pleased the markets are closed today. That gives them a 48-hour window to crank up the disinformation.

Before the bottom falls out Monday, of course. Thursday's 10% slide will probably look rosy compared to what is about to hit them.

Re:Wall Street Closed

[Anonymous Coward]

I just checked the ticker (I know NY is closed), I want to know who the joker is with the .01 bid outstanding!!!!Too funny!!!

Re:Wall Street Closed

[(1)down]

I don't think this is an accident

I think Darl snuffed out good ol' Ronald, KNOWING that it would give him time to spread FUD.
Or maybe my tin foil hat is on to tight.

SCO showed the code???

[silicon not in the v]

You apparently have to be in McBride's mind to see it though. Here is a quote from their press release:

"McBride said SCO has been diligent in providing the courts with samples of the code it believes IBM has contributed to Linux. He said IBM has not been as forthcoming."

Oh, man! I wore my nice shoes today, and I didn't appreciate stepping in all this horses*** Darl is throwing around.

Re:SCO showed the code???

[rking]

"McBride said SCO has been diligent in providing the courts with samples of the code it believes IBM has contributed to Linux. He said IBM has not been as forthcoming."

What he said is actually true, just unhelpful. We already know what code IBM contributed to Linux, it's got IBM copyright notices all over it in the public archives. What IBM have been asking SCO to provide is details of what SysV copyrights IBM has infringed upon. That's what they haven't provided, most likely because there isn't any.

Re:sometimes fun: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCO

[Marc Desrochers]

I'm just pissed off that the markets were closed today for the Reagan memorial... I really wanted to watch the stock tank today.

Yes, have it bookmarked and refresh regularly.

Who's operating system is this?

[ArcticCelt]

Who's operating system is this?

It's a UNIX baby.

Who's UNIX is this?

SCO!

Who's SCO?

SCO is dead baby, SCO is dead...

Re:Who's operating system is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Err....
What are you on about?

Re:Who's operating system is this?

[gothzilla]

It's from pulp fiction
Zed's dead baby....Zed's dead.

Recalling TSCOG forbade Sun

[rusty0101]

from releasing the source of Solairs as Open Source, (not that I really expect Sun would anyway, I happen to think Sun pumped that story for their own 'Press') because TSCOG thinks they have control over the licences that Sun distributes Solaris under. Licences which may not have the pull TSCOG thought they had, because TSCOG do not own what they thought they owned.

Does this mean that we will se Sun thumb their nose at TSCOG, prepare to release Solairs as Open Source, only to be shot down again, this time by their new working arangements with Microsoft?

-Rusty

I really hate to ask this...

[eLoco]

but what happens if Microsoft decides to buy these guys? They certainly have the war chest to keep litigation going for years.

Re:I really hate to ask this...

[DashEvil]

I do not believe any company with any REAL assets will want this. Open Source is the work of the people, the people are the revenue source for the corporations. Do not bite the hand that feeds you.

The only reason SCO is doing it is because their products suck.

It most surely was dismissed

[Anomalous Canard]

There was one claim on the case: slander of title. Novell brought a motion for dismissal stating two reasons: falsity and failure to plead special damages. The motion was denied as to falsity, but granted as to special damages.

At the moment, there is no case. Novell does not have to respond to SCO's claims. Novell dosn't have to do anything.

SCO now has 30 days to amend its pleading or else the game is over. There are no other charges to go forward to trial. If they fail to refile, nothing more happens. The case has been dismissed. SCO can pull it out of the dustbin, but it's entirely up to them.

Grammar nazi here, please

[GoneGaryT]

Looking at the list of recipients of the judgement, I have to ask if it is legit to call someone Mr X Esq. ? I thought it was either Mr X or (John) X Esq., but not both. Ruling, please.

My analysis

[mec]

Damn, this was some heavy reading! Here's my armchair legal analysis.

First, Novell sold a lot of Unix(tm) intellectual property rights to TSG. Novell and TSG signed a contract for this, the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Later on, Novell and TSG signed an amedement, APA Amendment 2 (APA-2). Dunno whatever happened to APA Amendment 1.

The original APA says that no copyrights are transferred as part of the sale. APA-2 says that the sale does include some copyrights -- whatever copyrights that TSG needs to enforce its other rights for the property that they paid good money for.

Fast-forward to 2003. TSG starts its campaign: "we own the Unix copyrights. Pay us $$$$$$$$$." Novell puts out its own press releases: "actually, we (Novell) still own the actual copyrights. You don't have to listen to TSG".

TSG gets pissed off about this, says that Novell is lying about TSG's Unix copyrights and that Novell is fucking with TSG's business of selling licenses to those copyrights. TSG sues Novell about this.

TSG: "We paid for those copyrights, see APA-2"

Novell: "No, actually, APA-2 says that we promise to give you whatever copyrights you need later, APA-2 doesn't actually transfer specific copyrights."

The case ends up in Federal court, Judge Kimball. TSG wants the case to be in State court. Novell wants the case to stay in Federal court.

Kimball says: "this case is about whether APA-2 actually transferred the copyrights or not. That's a federal issue. So it stays here in federal court."

Next, Novell says: "it's so CLEARLY OBVIOUS that APA-2 does not transfer copyrights that it's okay for us to state publicly that TSG doesn't own the copyrights. Please tell TSG to stuff their lawsuit and go screw."

Kimball says: "not so fast, Novell. It's not OBVIOUS at all. Maybe APA-2 actually transferred the copyrights but MAYBE NOT. We're going to need a trial to figure that out. Since we're going to need a trial, I'm not going to dismiss the lawsuit on those grounds at this stage."

Next, Novell says: "and oh yeah, TSG's lawsuit is deficient because they weren't specific about how they were damaged -- just because they are trying to license this Unix(tm) property, and we issue press releases pissing all over the idea that Unix(tm) is THEIR property after they paid $100 million for it, that's not enough. See FRCP mumble."

Judge Kimball says: "Novell's got a point. SCO, your legalese has syntax errors and fails to validate. I'm not saying your content is bogus, I'm saying your syntax is wrong. You have 30 days to re-format your lawsuit so that it's valid FRCP".

So, the deal is:

TSG can continue to sue Novell for dumping on TSG's claims that TSG owns the Unix copyrights. TSG must pursue this lawsuit in federal court, because it's a federal issue whether those copyrights actually transferred or not.

Novell's claim that "Novell still owns the copyrights" might be legally potent or it might not. It will take a trial to determine this. But Novell can't make TSG's lawsuit go away at this stage just by claiming this. It might be true, but it's not OBVIOUS that it's true.

TSG has the right to sue Novell for slandering TSG's title to Unix(tm). But their current complaint is defective. They have 30 days for their lawyers to submit a new, more specific complaint. Then the case will proceed, in federal court, and the court can actually do some more work on the question of whether APA-2 transferred the copyrights or not.

Re:My analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a key step missing. The original agreement was between Novell and OldSCO, now known as Tarantella. The properties transfered in the amended APA were later transferred to Caldera, now TSG, but they claim to have lost the contract executing that transfer.

So really, there are a few interesting angles here. Novell is claiming (persuasively, in my lay opinion) that the amended APA does not qualify as a transfer of copyright under federal rules, so TSG cannot own the copyright. But there's also the unsettled question of which copyrights Novell owned at the time the amendment was executed (I don't know whether Novell wants to go there), a question raised by the AT&T vs BSD action, as well as the question of a transfer executed from OldSCO to Caldera.

Also:
Kimball says: "not so fast, Novell. It's not OBVIOUS at all. Maybe APA-2 actually transferred the copyrights but MAYBE NOT. We're going to need a trial to figure that out. Since we're going to need a trial, I'm not going to dismiss the lawsuit on those grounds at this stage."

Kimball seems to hint fairly broadly that he agrees with Novell's interpretation that the amended APA is not an instrument of transfer. However, since this was a motion for dismissal, he has to look on everything favorably to SCO. It's entirely possible that a motion for summary judgement would go the other way.

In fact, I don't think it would be a huge shock if TSG took the hint and didn't refile. As it is, for all of Kimball's hints, he didn't rule on whether Novell or TSG holds the copyrights. If that ruling would go against TSG, it would sink their other litigation, so they might very well prefer to get out of this without getting their heads handed to them.

Judge Kimball says: "Novell's got a point. SCO, your legalese has syntax errors and fails to validate. I'm not saying your content is bogus, I'm saying your syntax is wrong. You have 30 days to re-format your lawsuit so that it's valid FRCP".

The problem is that TSG had to identify certain ways that Novell had hurt them and they failed to do so. It's a little more serious than simply bad syntax.

Re:My analysis

[dlrapp]

'Novell's claim that "Novell still owns the copyrights" . . .' I have been trying to follow all of this for the last year and a half and I think that I have read most of the /. and Groklaw postings. The thing is this: Novell hasn't (to my knowledge) claimed that they own the copyrights in question. Novell has said that TSCOG doesn't own them. One possible scenario is that there are no copyrights to own.

Re:My analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is even more interesting than that, because one more thing is missing: If the APA+Amendment2 didn't originally transfer rights to OldSCO, (for example, due to lack of specificity) then OldSCO couldn't possibly have transferred them to TSG. Therefore TSG can't possibly sue Novell for them, even if they are required for TSGs business (which they may not be anyway) because the APA specifically protects Novell from third party lawsuits. The best TSG could do is sue Tarantella (OldSCO) for contract violation, and Tarantella could sue Novell. The problem is, it would be almost impossible for Tarantella to say they require the copyrights for their UNIX/Unixware business, since they already tried to sell them to someone else. Clearly they don't need them. So they would have no standing under the "required" part of Amendment2. If they somehow came up with some standing, they still would have to get the copyrights transferred now and then transfer them again to TSG before TSG could sue anyone for violating them. Since TSG didn't own the copyrights before, they couldn't sue anyone for violating them prior to the time when they received the copyrights. That means they'd specifically have to show that someone is violating the copyright right now, not even at some point in the past.

Re:My analysis

[jgoemat]

Actually you missed a story, Novell filed for copyrights.

Re:My analysis

[dlrapp]

I'd say that proves that they did not get any such copyrights when they acquired SRV5 in the first place.

IBM and patent portfolio -- outlook seems good

[OmniGeek]

The one thing that remains to be seen is whether IBM is willing to use its patent portfolio to pressure Microsoft not to suffocate F/OSS with its patents. If this is the case then full-blown OS competition may be right around the corner.

One can never be sure with corporations, but it sure LOOKS like IBM, as a part of their business plan, wants F/OSS to succeed, and plans to ride that wave. (Farsighted of them if they do, 'cause F/OSS is already a major player in software, and it ain't going away.) It's certainly a better plan than trying to stop the wave (see SCO vs. world+dog).

Re:IBM and patent portfolio -- outlook seems good

[Anonymous Coward]

(Farsighted of them if they do, 'cause F/OSS is already a major player in software, and it ain't going away.)

IBM bet the wrong way when PC hardware was becoming commoditised. When it came time for software they were amongst the first (amongst big business anyway) to see it and commit themselves. Not that there is stil proprietary hardware. There will still be proprietary hardware and software in the future, but there will be a lot of commodity stuff too, on the software side that means Free Software.

A knife to a gunfight is overstating it....

[rbird76]

SCO against IBM, Novell, Red Hat, etc. is like bringing a spork to a firefight. If they're lucky, the (figurative) weapons fire will break SCO into small enough pieces that an open casket funeral (with Darl holding the spork in his cold, dead hand) will be impossible.

Am I the only one who read "TSG"

[Anonymous Coward]

as "The Smoking Gun"? I was wondering why they needed another month to get mugshots of Darl McBride.

Re:Article wrong. Slashdot right

[Anonymous Coward]

So first Sun and Microsoft living in harmony, now Slashdot getting a story right. These are the end times and Kev McBride is the Beast!

Even a month's delay is worth a lot to Microsoft

[BattyMan]

Really? How?

'Cuz I don't see it. Are they going to complete their World Domination(tm) plan in a month?

They're not getting Longhorn out in a month. It ain't gonna happen.

They're not fixing the "security" problem in a month, either. "Trustworthy" Computing(tm) has been two years and more now, and the situation (whether or not actually worse) is _perceived_ as worse, not better. Since "security" is a PR problem (NOT a software problem) for the Emire, this one's moving in the wrong direction!

SCO Probably Still in the Game

[0x0d0a]

Reading it, it looks like the only issue is that SCO didn't include some content in their actual complaint that they already provided in their oral arguments, right?

So, it looks like more of a technicality that should be easily remedied by SCO.

IANAL.

Re:SCO Probably Still in the Game

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell the dismissal is pretty much a technicality yes, SCO should be able to fix this easily enough if they want to fight this battle.

However, in saying that he found Novell's arguments re lack of transfer persuasive but that they'd be more suitable for summary judgment or trial, the judge leaves it sounding as though Novell will be in a very good position if the case does proceed. That's not a guarantee of course, but it does tell both parties which way the wind is blowing.

Re:SCO Probably Still in the Game

[mec]

Yeah, I think SCO-Novell suit is still up in the air, too.

On SCO's side, I think they will argue that the whole point of APA-2 is to transfer copyrights. It's not like OldSCO said "hey, let's do a deal where we give you a bag of money, and you give us hot air that means nothing. That's the deal we intend to make."

On Novell's side, I think they will argue that APA-2 is just a preliminary agreement and does not actually transfer any copyrights until, say, SCO makes a demand for a specific copyright that they need to own.

My view is that the original lawyers who wrote APA-2 screwed up. APA-2 should be more explicit about which copyrights transfer and when. I'm just an amateur about this, but I wonder if the judge is P.O.'ed that SCO and Novell have a vague contract and now they are relying on a court to tell them both what the agreement is.

Re:Has anyone read the groklaw article?

[Marble68]

Where at? I must have missed that or something

This paragraph from Groklaw says the case> is not dismissed.

Judge Kimball says he can't grant Novell's motion to dismiss at this stage, but he clearly has a leaning, and it isn't in SCO's direction. It's just that on a motion to dismiss, the judge is required to construe all facts in the light most favorable to the party whose case might be dismissed, the non-moving party, and on the Motion to Dismiss, that would be SCO, and as a matter of law, he can't grant the motion to dismiss in totality, because while "Novell has raised persuasive arguments as to whether a sufficient writing exists" without more evidence, he can't rule on the sufficiency of the agreement yet.

The summary on Groklaw doesn't say the case is dismissed either, only motions.

What did I miss?

Does anyone at SCO still care?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the insiders sold like crazy when the stock was at 20s. So who is getting the last laugh now? SCO insiders with all the money they made or us still thinking that the stock is down and the cases are going to be thrown out?

Effectively, dismissed without prejudice

[dacarr]

Remember, gang, as much as this seems like a victory, it's only a battle. The courts have for all intents dismissed SCO without prejudice - explicitly stating they can amend the complaint in the next month.

Judge...."John".... Kimball???

[bloxnet]

Judge - "I'm going to ask you some questions, and I want you to answer them immediately"

SCO Lawyer - "We're aren't ready yet. Who the hell are you to make demands?!?"

Judge - "I'M A JUDGE YOU IIIDIOT!"

Judge - "Who is your client, and what do they do.."

Bah, I give up, this Arnold joke was much funnier in my head...now that I am writing it, it sucks. I'll post anyways.

Re:Judge...."John".... Kimball???

[abionnnn]

Darn! It was getting good... :)

SCO's not pinin'!

[Qbertino]

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This SCO is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If 'e hadn't nailed 'tis Linux suit to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-COMPANY!!

Novell & Unix Copyrights

[Z4rd0Z]

If Novell really does own the Unix copyrights, how did Caldera legally open source portions of it a few years ago? Why didn't Novell say anything about it then?

What did the five fingers say to the face?

[OldSchoolNapster]

Slap! I'm Rick James, bitch.

This is a minor event

[Animats]

This isn't that big a deal. The "slander of title" claim wasn't going anywhere. SCO still has a contract dispute with Novell pending, The odds of SCO winning that case just dropped, but SCO's claims there are not totally bogus. It's a tough contract case. Clearly SCO bought some rights from Novell, but the language of exactly who owns what is ambiguous.

More significantly, SCO did get an extension in the IBM case. Trial has been pushed back to November 2005, and discovery has been extended. So we have another year and a half of FUD ahead.

There's still Red Hat vs. SCO, SCO vs. AutoZone, and SCO vs. Damlier-Chrysler. By now, corporate Linux users have figured out that there's no reason to pay SCO money until SCO wins all of these cases. Hence the $11,000 total revenue from SCOsource.

What a misleading title...

[Eric Damron]

"Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements."

This is total crap. That's not what happened at all!

Go to groklaw to get the real poop.

1. SCO lost its fight to get the case sent back to state court.
2. Judge Kimball says he can't grant Novell's motion to dismiss at this stage.
3. Judge Kimball says that SCO didn't plead the damages part adequately and he gives them 30 days to try, try again.

From reading the title one would think that SCO lost it's case and the whole thing was over.

Pretty cheezy if you ask me!

Let's all wait until SCO really loses (which I'm pretty sure they will.) before we start slapping each other on our backs.

Re:What a misleading title...

[Doppleganger]

"Judge Kimball has stated that The SCO Group has failed to meet the requirements of the law in its complaint against Novell and has dismissed the case but gives TSG 30 days to try to meet the legal requirements."

This is total crap. That's not what happened at all!

That is exactly what happened... no more, no less. The judge ruled that SCO didn't meet the requirements of the case they were pleading, and dismissed it without prejudice. Since it was without prejudice, SCO has 30 days to fix the errors in their case and bring it back. If it had been with prejudice, a large portion of SCO's claims would have been shot completely out of the water... but that didn't happen, and the article doesn't claim it did either.

Re:What a misleading title...

[Error27]

Someone already correct your mistake. Slashdot got the story _exactly_ right.

The interesting question is whether SCO will refile. If they don't refile, then it's still ambiguous who owns the copyright. If they do refile then the judge strongly indicated that he wanted to rule on whole own the copyrights (as apposed to ruling on malice). He also hinted that he would likely rule in favor of Novell on the copyright claims.

They'll obviously choose to refile or not based on which one can draw out the process longer.

Getting to hate journalists

[Nice2Cats]

One side effect of the SCO case and Groklaw's laser focus on the facts is that the tech press is being exposed in the most brutal way as the bunch of clueless idiots they are. PJ rants a bit about this in her current post. Reading her site and then watching the facts unfold just as she predicted makes you wonder why we even bother with the mainstream press.

Of course, after watching just about every U.S. paper and news channel turn into a miniature propaganda ministery during the Iraq War, only to crawl back tearfully when things start hitting the fan, the question is why anyone still bothers.

Thank God for PJ.

What? This is a great victory for SCOX!!

[walterbyrd]

Haven't you been reading the pop-media-tech-news? This is 100% positive for scox, and bad for FOSS. And there are no tanks in Baghdad! Here's a sample:

"There's going to be weeping and gnashing of teeth today among the open source set when they hear that a Utah federal court has decided that SCO's suit against Novell - the one Novell wanted thrown out on its ear - is worth hearing after all."

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/45223.htm

Funny, I didn't know that's what "dismisial" meant. In fact, I thought it meant the opposite. Guess I'm not smart enough to write for the
tech-pop-media.

Re:What? This is a great victory for SCOX!!

[crusher-1]

The writer obviously did little or absolutely no research about what she was supposedly reporting on.
Either that or she has no understanding of legalese whatsoever. Not being able to grasp the finer points of "legalese" is not uncommon in the least. But, if you're going to report on something of this nature one would expect that you would at least "get the drift"!

Furthermore, though it is a Linux centric website habited by the Linux faithful, the commects to her article are "all" (every one) negative regarding her take on the case.

For the Love of Pete - Grog Law may be maintained by a F/OSS-Linux supporter, but they lay it out in a pretty fair and reasonably unbiased format. Five or ten minutes perusing their site would have allowed her to avoid sounding like a complete dote.

I expect this sort of slant on a M$ friendly site like Eweek or something Ziff-Davis since they are actually and formally partnered with M$. But on a Linux World site??? And Eweek had a more cogent and accurate interpretation of the events.

I think it's safe to say that Linux World needs to be a little more descriminating about who writes for them. And the editor needs to actually read these before approving them? Ya think?

I don't use a mouse you insensitive clod!

[MojoReisen]

I'm using Lynx.

Re:Has anyone read the groklaw article?

[mr.mighty]

The conclusion of the decision is

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages.

DATED this 9th day of June, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

[signature of Dale A. Kimball]
DALE A. KIMBALL,
United States District Judge

Note that he says the motion to dismiss is denied on one set of grounds, but granted on another.

SCO's Right

[hhawk]

I've tried to follow this case but I need some help. From what i read the Judge agreed that the first contract transfered NO Copyrights. Then their was an amendment that agreed to transer any copyright "needed to sell" what is now SCO. [None have been requested.]

My question, "How can they (SCO) sell SCO/Unixware, etc if they don't have the copyright?"

Did they get some type of License to sell?

Did they get access to the source code? [I assume yes.] Did they have some legal basis to mod the code for fixes and new releases?

My 2nd question being, "how could they sell new revisions of the product, if they didn't have copyright over the code base?"

Re:SCO's Rights?

[hhawk]

The subject line for my previous post should have been "SCO's Rights?" asking if they have any, not "SCO's Right" implying that I agree with them. Sorry for the error/type.

Kimball?

[Xetrov]

Kimball claims "I didn't kill my wife!"

Re:Summary of parent post:

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't deserve a -1 for that.

Well, I found it funny anyway.

- Jonsey, AC to prevent further karma burn (damn the funny)