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.
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!
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.