Slashdot Mirror
SCO Files for Stay of Execution
An anonymous reader writes "SCO has filed for another delay in the case against IBM. The article reports that 'According to filings in the case, SCO is looking to buy time until the court can hear its arguments compelling IBM to release more information. SCO lawyers argue the information -- namely source code they claim was lifted from AIX and Dynix to bolster the open source Linux kernel -- is necessary in getting a successful ruling.'"
Indeed. For example:
"Also last week, SCO lawyers successfully fended off a filing made last week by AutoZone that would have put an end to any discovery proceedings in its case."
makes it look like SCO is the "good guy" here, getting beat up by all these evil Linux^W auto-part makers.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I am not a lawyer, and I am seeing what amounts to little more than:
IBM: We want summary judgment now.
SCO: No, you can't. You haven't given us [INSERT NAME OF RANDOM STUFF].
IBM: But that stuff is irrelevant. Besides, you haven't given us any proof. We want judgment now.
SCO: No, you can't. You haven't given us [INSERT NAME OF MORE RANDOM STUFF].
(ad infinitum)
What can IBM do legally to stop the cycle and for the judge to say, "Enough!"?
Watching the SCO saga is like watching a completely preventable train wreck in the slowest possible motion - kind of like watching snakegrass grow, or watching paint on the ugliest painting ever painted dry. Mondrian's skidmarks after a night of taxidancing. Picasso's Kleenex. Something like that.
We should start putting up options on when this idiotic extravaganza will come to a final end.
2005?
2006?
2007?
2438?
I no longer feel sorry for any one left treading water at SCO. They've had PLENTY of time to jump ship and flee the scene. When the slowly grinding wheel of justice makes its dirty, uuuh, duty, clean, nnnuuh, clear, these trusswrappers will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and they will all have to walk the plank.
"I was Darl McBride, CEO at SCO for ages. Now I ask customers 'you want fries with that?' "
Hope and Pray.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Can you believe it's been 18 months since this started? SCO hasn't shown us one unrefutable piece of evidence in 18 months...
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
In the media, all SCO go on about is copyright and IP. But copyright only makes up part of this case. IBM is suing SCO for copyright infringement over it's code in Linux, that SCO is breaking the GPL when distributing, and also selling a licence for. IBM are also asking the judge to rule that it does not break any of SCO's supposodly copyrighted code by putting it's own code in Linux. SCO cannot, and have not shown, or tried to show, in court, any copyright infringement by IBM.
But.... As SCO tries to obfuscate what it going on, they're arguing contract when the case is copyright, and copyright when the case is contract - pure misdirection.
SCO says that the AT&T contract is unambigous, and IBM says that the AT&T contract is unambiguous, but they both interperet it quite differently. Even when SCO try to bring up witnesses from the BSDi v USL case, to contradict what IBM is now getting those same witnesses to say, they fail to come up with any meaningful contradictions, and fail to note that the black and white of the contract, side letter, Echo clarification and ammendments say, which is that IBM owns what is IBM's and AT&T own what is AT&T's. IBM cannot release code that is part of the AT&T Unix source code, but IBM can release code that is there's that they also put into Unix seperately. The facts of this case, even without the witnesses say IBM is right.
SCO still haven't got Novell off their backs, and their contract with Novell plainly doesn't transfer copyrights to SCO, and SCO cannot even find the paperwork to prove that they're successor in interest to that contract, and hence the AT&T contract.
The current deluge of paperwork from SCO is an attempt to befuddle and confuse, obfuscate and delay the judicial process.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Of course, that's assuming that Enderle is right in assuming that SCO will come off as sympathetic. And, even if SCO convinces a jury, that the case would continue to survive the inevitable appeal. SCO probably doesn't expect to win in the end, but even a fleeting victory would give them another spike in their stock price they could exploit for their own ends.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
The internetnews article says "Originally scheduled for Tuesday, the hearing was pushed back to Oct. 19", but that was just the discovery hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
The important hearing, on IBM's motion for summary judgment on its tenth counterclaim, is still on for tomorrow, which you can verify at the court's website, both Judge Kimball's schedule and the case history (item 268).
If IBM's motion is granted, Judge Kimball will issue a declaratory judgment that IBM's copying of Linux does not infringe any SCO copyright. That would imply that anyone else copying any of the Linux versions IBM uses is not infringing any SCO copyrights, either.
The SCO-IBM disputes over contracts would remain, but the rest of the world needn't concern itself about those.
You can find the briefing papers on the motion here
You know, it's just to the point now where I read groklaw in the morning before I read /. , and then I spend the rest of my day wondering when groklaw's latest article will show up over here.
Too bad groklaw doesn't have moderation points like here, else I'd spend even more time over there.
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
So SCO accuses IBM of copying SCO's source code into Linux. Then delays claiming that IBM hasn't given the source code over for examination. This is what happened, isn't it? SCO obviously already has their own code. The Linux code is open source and freely available all over the net. So how can SCO credibly make such a claim? Why, through lawyers of course. God! We are so in need of tort reform.
Yes, there's the possibility of SCO's attorneys talking some naive jury into issuing a verdict in their favor, however that would not guarantee anything for them. First, the case has to make it through the trial and to the jury deliberation stage. I'd be very surprised if SCO doesn't run out of money before this point. Then, the jury's verdict would have to stand up to appeals, which you can be sure IBM would file if they were to somehow lose. Even then, all the jury's verdict would likely mean is SCO winning a contract dispute. The SCO pipe dream of Linux users being ordered to pay them a license fee would still not materialize since at this point, the offending code would have to be identified and could be stripped out of Linux.
In summary, SCO has a long, uphill battle even if they could convince a jury to award a verdict in their favor. I'd bet on the earth being destroyed by a giant meteor before I'd bet on SCO getting billions of dollars from their lawsuits.
Old news for GROKLAW readers...
/. should not cover it as well. Do you expect to find a major story in only one newspaper?
/. and it's getting rather old to watch every story about SCO on /. have someone scream, "This is old new! Groklaw had it first!"
Now don't get me wrong, Groklaw is a good site for the most up to date information on all of this but the format that PJ put it in, her editorializing not withstanding, is very legalease.
And that also is just fine. There are geek lawyers out there who want to know the straight dope on what's going on with SCO, the IANAL geeks who know enough to read it without getting splitting headaches after a while, and those of us like me to still go there and read but soon develop splitting headaches after a while.
I don't expect a lawyers to understand C and don't think that just beacuse geeks are considered to be smart that they should automaticly have to understand legalease. It's unfair to expect just because Groklaw exists that
Groklaw has their niche as does
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I thought that case was sealed? How can they use testimony from that case?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Groklaw is the best thing to come out of this suit.
Only good thing so far as well.
I too am a regular Groklaw reader and really really wish they had moderation. As it is there is just waaay too much noise in the comments. I usually end up only reading a couple of "first posts" and then leaving. I would be very interested in reading some of the really interesting comments if they could somehow be bubbled up like it is here.
I donated a little money earlier today and suggested to PJ that she turn on moderation for Groklaw. She doesn't have to, but if enough of us did that she might reconsider it. I will continue to visit Groklaw on a daily basis regardless though.
Many Linux geeks including myself shorted the SCO stock and made large amounts of money. In my opinion that is another good thing that came out of this fiaSCO.
Thanks to SCO I have a brand new SUV and some really really nice computer equipment. And I am not even done spending a quarter of the proceeds from my successful SCO short transanction. I would actually like to thank Darl and the gang for the money. I am just not sure what the best way of doing this would be.
Maybe I'll send them a card and thank them for lying through their teeth and pumping up a worthless stock. I am sure they'll appreciate it.
Or excercised some options.
No need to send them a card.
I think they new before hand exactly how many stock they could sell off without looking like a pump and dump.
For example lets say they have been selling 10000 shares every six months for the year before all this happend as a way of getting their lively hood. I have heard many arguements that this is how a lot of CEO's make there living and that it's honest.
So now you have our officer who isn't happy with the 60 thousand a year he's been making in excess of his salary. So we'll announce that we have absolute proof of millions and millions of line of code that IBM has put into linux and is infringing our code. Stock goes from 3 dollars to 22 dollars and instead of making 60 thousand a year, in one deal our officer makes 220 thousand dollars. Doesn't matter that he used Fraud to get it. And he can claim hey I just did what he's been doing all along. And the CEO alas wasn't able to excercise the options so he got a bonus that put his salary over 1 million dollars for the effort. And on the long shot that he has over half a million shares of stock options that are going to make him rich for the rest of his life.
Now all they have to do is stick it out till the company is bankrupt and worthless so that it looks like they "Believed" in the company. Sure they may not have made 37 million but we aren't seeing all the behind the seens stuff that goes on with the primary stock holders and they made a whole lot more than they would have if they had stayed the course and not sued IBM.
So in short... for them it was a Win-Win situation... Lose lose for the company... but Win-win for the officers and initial shareholders. Oh by the way... I've noticed that some officers that couldn't excercise their options when the going was good, haven't purchased any stock in the company either. Wonder why... I mean if they are so sure they are going to win.
Six, eight months ago, I would have agreed with the assesment that Linux would probably come away clean on the copyright front. Since then, SCO has been given every chance in court to come up with meaningful instances of infringement and has failed. So I'm very confident that Linux will come out completely clean on copyrights. It's always possible other infringements exist -- that's why I would have said "probably" before -- but they'll be dealt with when they arise.
You're right, though, the court battle itself is only boosting the perception of Linux.
The enemies of Democracy are