Slashdot Mirror
Novell Poised To Strike On Slander Of Title Claim
Xenographic writes "As seen in this Groklaw article, Novell is moving to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim with prejudice. They key to it is that SCO needs Novell's claims to be "knowingly false" to establish malice. Since the judge's own order on the motion to remand (see also part 2) questions whether there really was ever actually a copyright transfer, Novell's assertion that there was no transfer cannot be knowingly false, so SCO's case falls apart. Unfortunately, as Novell points out, the judge would be doing this without actually deciding the underlying issue of who owns what copyrights, and SCO could file a completely different suit for breach of contract or something, even though SCO would be unable to refile this slander of title suit. As an aside, I should mention that this isn't the first or only controversy over defamation we've seen in this fiasco by any means."
Read Rob Enderle's SCO Keynote.
Because that is exactly what they want. They want to walk out of this with golden parachutes, completely in the right. Darl: "Look, Novell bought us because it knew that our IP claims were legitimate!". No, I don't think that Novell either should or will buy out SCO.
I think they'll crush them into the ground. Then spit on them.
Ads? What ads?
Why can't IBM ... just buy these clowns?
"Pour encourager les autres". It would send a clear message to every Self-serving Cynical Organisation that playing fast-and-loose with the law against legitimate businesses is an acceptable and profitable activity.
Best result here is for SCO to die horribly - and publically[1].
([1] OK, my best result is Darl et al serving time, but I'll settle for Joe Q WallStreet knowing that SCO's business model was suicide)
This is where the serious fun begins.
while the first won't work, the second promises a lot of dough to SCO's lawyers. Remember, they will get 20%?
look at it the other way: would you rather IBM donate 65mil to EFF or to this scum?
While generally you guys get a lot of things right (constitutional protection, etc), one thing that maddens me about these "only in the USA" stories is the freedom you give to lawyers to run amok with cases and spend all their clients money, forcing the other side to spend even more.
Here in the UK (well England and Wales at least), as you may know, the loser in litigation generally has to pick up the winner's legal fees. Where the claim was, e.g. an abuse of process, the fees can be payable on a punitive ("indemnity") basis. If either side is on a shaky financial footing, they can be forced to pay money into court to cover their opponent's litigation risk.
Is anyone thinking of taking these sort of rules into the US system? Or would that not work with the constitution?
That's because the risks most definitely do not outweigh the rewards. For example, the Ken Lay's, Bernie Ebbers', John Rigas', and Darl McBride's of this world aren't going to go broke anytime soon, even if they destroy the bank accounts and viability of all the employees of the companies they mis-managed. Instead, they might have to spend some minimal amount of time at a country club prison, followed by having to spend the rest of their lives in comfortable luxury, while the employees whose careers and retirement accounts they've destroyed will struggle to make ends meet for the rest of their lives.
The only acceptable punishment for these people is the complete destruction of their lives and their families lives. It's no less damaging than what they did to their employees. Pure Hammurabi code here.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
[Melaugh] tells the judge that he did a LexisNexis news search for the words IBM and SCO and got 2,845 results, starting with the month and year that SCO filed the lawsuit. Next, he narrowed it down by choosing as cutoff date the first Novell public statement, and he still got 317 articles. They present the judge with beginning chunks of the first 50 of each search, asking that he take judicial note of the huge media frenzy around SCO.
This is a public dispute, and it was SCO who made it so not only by suing IBM, but by sending the 1500 threatening letters and sounding off in the media. "SCO has done everything it can to stoke that firestorm." Additionally, it has started or is defending against "at least six lawsuits before five judges in four states and two countries."Under those circumstances, Novell has the legal right to speak without being threatened with litigation for doing so.
Interest move - sounds like Novell are interested in dodging the case without having the issue of copyrights decided.
Why?
Simple, because Novell have been sued for slander of title, not for copyright infringement. They have to defend against the case brought against them in court, not the case brought against them in the press.
I find it helps a lot to stop listening to what SCO say, and pay exclusive attention to what they do.
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
What everyone is waiting for now is the Ch11/13 of SCO so they can tear it into pieces and buy the parts they want.
Actually, what I'm waiting for is for IBM to "pierce the corporate veil" and go after Canopy's assets. (Google the phrase or seach for it on Groklaw for detailed discussions.) Under normal circumstances an incorporated entity shields the assets and freedom of the entities that created the corporation from legal attack. That is why you may see corporations paying out millions when they lose a big lawsuit, but you don't see the officers of that corporation personally liable, except perhaps in extreme circumstances like Enron.
Canopy (The private parent group that owns SCO) has already made out well. SCO could go belly up today and Canopy and Ralph Yarro who runs it would be ahead of the game. However, there are a number of things which make it appear that Yarro and Canopy may have helped to direct the SCO attacks--including the early involvement of the Canopy legal counsel, the Vultus acquisition, and a number of others.
I think the odds are against IBM being able to pierce that corporate veil and go after Canopy. However, if it can, it will really send a message to those that might consider another scam like this. The message would be that you could lose your personal fortunes. Even an unsuccessful attempt to pierce the veil would have a welcome chilling effect on similar future actions.
Now, as to the fire sale when SCO enters bankrupcy, my hope is that it will happen after SCO loses some court cases that make it clear eithre that it doesn't even own the IP (and the Novell dismissal with prejudice judgement would not do that) and/or that there is no Unix IP in Linux. Because if that isn't settled, all someone has to do is pick up that IP at the firesale and start all over.
You are right--he is a troll, effectively. You see, for a long time he's worked to be someone the media quotes (they still do, all too much, even though he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about half the time--he even mentions some of the trouble he got in in that speech).
In fact, his Enderle Group sells his quotability as a service--pay us, and we'll tell the press good things about you. That, plus as he admitted in his speech, he supports Microsoft for unrelated personal reasons.
Now then, people have started attacking his credibility en mass due to the SCO debacle. Some have even (gasp!) insulted him online. He hates this, because the more reasoned of us (e.g. me) are working to make it known that we believe that he is as paid shill and does not know whereof he speaks. Obviously, this message is getting out.
Thus, he works to portray all those who attack him as unintelligent, angry zealots. You said it well when you said he had a "very clear misunderstanding" of how this all works and what we mean by free. But that's not quite all: he knows what we mean and is deliberately twisting the facts to act as a troll.
Elsewhere, he's gone with a "BSD is better" line. The point of this is that he's trying to stir up or exacerbate whatever divisions exist among us--e.g. to sow strife and dischord. So far, I don't get the sense that he's doing it very well, but he's conciously trying to start flame wars.
Why? The controversy suits him--if he can get people mad enough, he can discredit them with their own angry rants (and there's always someone to supply these even if the rest of us hold our tongues). Moreover, he can use the controversy to put himself in the spotlight (get quoted even more in the media, etc.).
Thus, the best counter-strategy for us is to supply as many calm, rational and even-toned responses to his nonsense as is possible, and to simply ignore the flamebait portions of his talks.
The more reasonable people we can get who present sensible, articulated responses to his utter nonsense, the more we can discredit him in spite of the supply of angry hatemail he has to wave around.
I'm not some angry nitwit who is going around threatening anyone, and I refuse to have him defame us all by painting with one broad stroke.
To that end, I'm open for suggestions on how to help the media get a clue that he's not a credible source, and should not be trusted or used for quick & easy quotes.