Slashdot Mirror
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.
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!
How many more cases to go?
-1, "1337" speak
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.
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.
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.
DeviantArt Page
NSFW..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.
Crack heads dont pass. They keep it all for themselves.
Just an FYI. The crack culture and the MJ culture are very different.
Even if it is the entree to a lucrative career selling Linux insurance to the paranoid and lazy.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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.
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: 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.
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.
Maybe it's just me, but I tend to hover the mouse over links before I actually click on them for this exact reason.
How in the hell did a post that contains the words "Nanny nanny boo boo!!!" get modded as interesting?
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.
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?
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
Before the bottom falls out Monday, of course. Thursday's 10% slide will probably look rosy compared to what is about to hit them.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Which may be what he's thinking, but it's not actually practical to say it in public...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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).
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
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!
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
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.
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.
That's mostly similar to my view, but there's a subtle and important difference.
... 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".
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
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.