Slashdot Mirror


SCO Versus Novell Going All the Way

Robert writes "Computer Business Review reports that ownership of the Unix System V code copyrights is set to be decided in court after a US District Judge rejected Novell Inc's second request that SCO Group Inc's slander of title case be dismissed." From the article: "Novell's second motion to dismiss SCO's slander of title claim was prompted by an apparently positive response from Judge Dale Kimball to its first request to throw out the case, although he rejected it having concluded that the arguments about the agreements at the heart of the case would be more properly heard on potential later motions for summary judgment or trial."

121 comments

  1. Novell wins by Trizor · · Score: 0

    From the mysterious future.

    1. Re:Novell wins by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
      > Novell wins
      >
      > From the mysterious future.

      Nuh-uh.

      "SCO Versus Novell - case to go the distance"
      From the mysterious future.

      "Novell wins", "SCO defeated in Novell Case", and "Novell victorious over SCO" can't even appear in the mysterious future until after the trial is over.

    2. Re:Novell wins by KerberosKing · · Score: 5, Informative

      Like it said in the article, this means that rather than throw out the case based on the definition of malice, they will settle once and for all who owns the Unix copywrite and rights to licence its source code. I think this is a good thing, like when AT&T and Berkeley finally sorted out that BSD was entirely free of any of the AT&T code and could go on with life free of dumb lawsuits like this.

    3. Re:Novell wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm Muad'dib bitch. It is as I have seen it.

    4. Re:Novell wins by schon · · Score: 1

      I think this is a good thing

      I disagree.

      It's irrelevant as to whether Novell owns the copyright - they believe they do (and proved that they have a good reason to belive so), and that's all that matters for the case at hand.

      Novell didn't want to go the distance, they just wanted this to go away.

      By denying their motion, Judge Kimball as put a distinct "screw you" to justice, and given the go-ahead to frivolous lawsuits everywhere.

      We *KNOW* that SCO's suits are frivolous, and yet they are allowed to harrass innocent companies.

      This reeks of corruption.

    5. Re:Novell wins by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      FYI: It's copyright not copywrite. I wish people would get this correct.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    6. Re:Novell wins by KerberosKing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Certainly few (other than some unethical lawyers of course) want more frivolous lawsuits, but for my part, I would like to see the matter settled on the merits of the case rather than simply throwing it out on a narrow definition of malice. Otherwise this could keep coming back. Let's just have it out and leave a good precident to follow.

    7. Re:Novell wins by njcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful
      actually... there is a little bit of gray area in the Novell SCO case as to who owns what. The contract said that Novell retains the copyrights but SCO has all rights that they may need to enforce the licensing.

      My understanding is that SCO is the reseller for Unix licenses but Novell was still holding the copyrights. SCO is just a salesman for Unix and Novell gets the bulk of any Unix sales while SCO gets what appears to be a commission. Since SCO is the only person selling the licenses they needed to have some sort of weight behind their authority to sell licenses which included giving them enough rights to enforce the licensing.

      This makes sense.... If I go into a contract with you to become the exclusive seller of your widgets it is important to me to have rights to protect my exclusivity. You may not care if someone else starts selling knock offs of your widgets but I do and I need the legal weight to be able to protect my investments (employees, time and other resources).

      I don't think it will come out that SCO owns Unix but it may be possible that SCO does have enough rights to protect the business that Novell gave it. Which may mean that SCO does have the right to revoke IBM's license, at least under some circumstances.

      There seemed to be some inconsistencies in the contract and I'd be interested to see how it turns out. Something I read implied that the rights SCO did attain were in an ammendment to the contract that Novell didn't know about? Who knows. I just want this to be overwith and see the idiots on both sides finally shut up.

    8. Re:Novell wins by schon · · Score: 1

      actually... there is a little bit of gray area in the Novell SCO case as to who owns what.

      Which is precisely why the case should have been dismissed.

      Please re-read my post, you seem to misunderstand what I wrote.

    9. Re:Novell wins by njcoder · · Score: 1
      "Which is precisely why the case should have been dismissed."

      That doesn't make a lick of sense. You agree that there are some gray areas. That's what the court case is for, to clear those up. What you originally wrote was

      "It's irrelevant as to whether Novell owns the copyright - they believe they do (and proved that they have a good reason to belive so), and that's all that matters for the case at hand."

      It doesn't matter one bit if Novell believes they own the copyright or if they believe they have good reason to. What they believe doesn't matter. SCO believes they have certain rights too and they believe they have good reason to believe that. There's that bit in the contract.

      When two parties have a contract and they are in dispute you need to have a third party intervene. In this case the court. Now, the problem is that in the US courts, if there's a contract dispute and there is something unclear in a contract, the court favors the party that didn't write the contract, in this case maybe SCO? I don't know.. I'm not a lawyer. I wasn't involved in the contract.

      Just because Novell is the good guy and SCO is the bad guy doesn't mean the case should be dismissed no matter what Novell believes.

    10. Re:Novell wins by eric76 · · Score: 1

      If this were a copyright lawsuit, you would be correct.

      But it is not a copyright lawsuit. It is a slander of title lawsuit.

      For SCO to win, they must prove several things including that they own the copyrights and that Novell knew that SCO owned those copyrights when they made their statements that they owned them.

      Thus, if Novell's belief that they own the copyrights is reasonable, then as far as this lawsuit goes, Novell should win regardless of whether or not they own the copyrights.

    11. Re:Novell wins by eric76 · · Score: 1

      One other thing.

      I am curious whether or not SCO can/will use this as a reason to delay the IBM suit.

      If the IBM suit depends at all on who does own the copyrights, what do you bet SCO will ask the court to delay until after their lawsuit against Novell is decided.

    12. Re:Novell wins by njcoder · · Score: 1
      thanks for clearing things up. I assumed at least an element of the case would be copyright.

      "I am curious whether or not SCO can/will use this as a reason to delay the IBM suit."

      I think the copyright issue may only have relavance in the IBM case in regards to SCO trying to revoke their license. I think SCO might have had a case against IBM if they stuck with project monterey. Not that they would win but that they would have some legitimate reasons for pursuing a case and I wouldn't put it past IBM to screw them over like that. Wouldn't have been so bad for them if they weren't grandstanding about everything. Instead they just went nuts.

    13. Re:Novell wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reeks of "Judge Kimball doesn't want SCO to file an appeal claiming that they didn't get their day in court." Dot the i's, cross the t's, and don't give SCO anything they can use to prolong this debacle after the final rulings come down assuming SCO loses.

  2. The only real winners... by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...are going to be the lawyers.

    No matter which side comes out on top, the lawyers still get paid. (Unless the accept payment only with a favorable verdict, but they might be company lawyers.)

    1. Re:The only real winners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the lawyers (and SCO) hope to make money:

      1. Litigage
      2. ???
      3. Profit!!!

    2. Re:The only real winners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter which side comes out on top, the lawyers still get paid.

      And so do the employees of both corporations. What is it with this anti-lawyer hostility?

    3. Re:The only real winners... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      lawyers exist because the law has become too complex for people to represent themselves. Especilly for smaller companies and individuls the need for them turns lawsuits into a huge financial drain regardless of who is in the right or who brought the case.

      In most systems i belive you can either be awarded costs or countersue for them but you still have to have the money to pay in the first place and if your opponent goes bankrupt then you may not get it payed back even if you win.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:The only real winners... by drerwk · · Score: 1

      foo exist because bar has become too complex for people to bletch themselves

      [foo, bar, bletch]
      lawyers, the law, represent
      programmers, computers, program
      mechanics, cars, repair
      doctors, medicine, practice

      lawyers are professionals - one of the older professions. professionals work to get paid in most cases.

    5. Re:The only real winners... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      true the difference with law is that someone else can force you into a case and therefore pretty much force you into buying lawyer time.

      I guess the same could be said of medicine if someone decided to mug you in the street then they are basically forcing you to pay a doctor.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:The only real winners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but lawyers are worse because, when you mug someone, you get arrested; when you sue someone you get large cash settlements.

    7. Re:The only real winners... by asadsalm · · Score: 1

      MS : SCO : Linux
      is the same as
      USA : Israel : Palestine

      Now, before you go modding this. Think about it.

      MS helps SCO behind the tables. Everyone knows about it. MS doesn't confront Linux directly. Linux gets angry about MS backing up SCO. Finally, it makes Linux so angry that MS gets a big blow from Linux.

      Now substitute.

      Oh yeah, and the only real winners here are ... "weapon makers".

    8. Re:The only real winners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What is it with this anti-lawyer hostility?

      Pure and simply, lawyers have destroyed the commonsense relation between justice and the citizenry, erected themselves as an indispensible middleman layer pushing bits of ruling that are every bit as obscure as chicken entrails, and turned "justice" into a paid-for benefit proportional to the size of your wallet.

      In other words, they are not only a waste of space within the area of human endeavour, but positively inimical to it.

      And you ask "Why the hostility"? /me sighs.

    9. Re:The only real winners... by nystire · · Score: 0

      I realise that this is Slashdot and that people are encouraged to post meaningless rants about subjects which they know nothing about.

      However, could you maybe - just this once - do a bit of background reading BEFORE you post anything else again? Preferably in the doctor's office while waiting for the vasectomy to match your obvious lobotomy?

    10. Re:The only real winners... by tepples · · Score: 1

      In your analogy, who is the counterpart to Hamas?

  3. Novell has a very, very strong case. by Dagny+Taggert · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IMHO, this could end up being a serious embarrasment to to SCO. Maybe now, they'll crawl away and die.

    --
    Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
    1. Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. by BlogPope · · Score: 5, Insightful
      this could end up being a serious embarrasment to to SCO.

      Those guys are way passed embarassing.

      --
      My other car is a Popemobile
    2. Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. by PsychicX · · Score: 1

      Another day, another court case.

      I just...stopped caring months ago. Everybody knows it'll end in nothing happening at all. The only people who walk away happy are the lawyers.

    3. Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. by nickos · · Score: 1

      "Everybody knows it'll end in nothing happening at all."

      I hope not. I want to SCO be declared bankrupt.

    4. Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. by Phexro · · Score: 1

      Nah. I'm hoping that IBM or Novell is awarded the entirety of the SCO business, and that they release the whole of UNIX into the public domain.

      Put that silly "who owns what" question to rest.

    5. Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      SCO is irrelevant. They have been for over a year now. How many times have we heard this, and how many times will we hear it before either they lose or someone pulls the plug. It's an out-of-control stock scam, and what needs to happen is for the moron investors to finally get the point that they were duped, and talk to their lawyers about suing these bastards. It's too late to get any money back, of course, but that's what retard investors who think that litigation equals a business plan. I may sound harsh, but anybody that invested money in this pack of crooks after they showed what they were up to deserves to lose their money.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      The thing is, some of those investors probably think it's a scam too.

      But, what they really care about is how much they can sell it to someone else. That (and to a lesser extent) dividends are all that matters.

      There's a lot of companies out there that I think are overpriced. It doesn't matter as long as you sell them before the world wakes up (a lot of buyers of stock are sheep).

    7. Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. by spinel · · Score: 1

      Nah. I'm hoping that IBM or Novell is awarded the entirety of the SCO business, and that they release the whole of UNIX into the public domain.

      I think if you look a little deeper you will find that X/Open -> now The Open Group owns the UNIX specs and name and the other court cases will not impact them much. Now if you mean Unix, those are owned by the companies or groups that developed them. It looks like Novell sold most rights except copyrights of their version of Unix to oldSCO. I think SCO would be in big trouble for failure to pass 95% of license fees on to Novell as per contract but SCO can't get much deeper in trouble until the ringleaders are in federal prison.

    8. Re:Novell has a very, very strong case. by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      financially or morally?

      I think they were pretty much always morally bankrupt, so we're waiting for a judge to declare that to be so.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  4. Summary judgement is still possible by gvc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Novell can still file for summary judgement. They asked to amend their motion for dismissal to a motion for summary judgement.

    The motion for dismissal and the amendment were denied. However, Novell can still file for summary judgement.

    There are (at least) two separate issues: (a) were the copyrights transferred to SCO; and (b) did Novell claim not with malice.

    The most recent dismissal motion speaks only to (b).

    It seems to me that (a) is a matter of law rather than fact, and might well be decided by summary judgement.

    1. Re:Summary judgement is still possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      and (c) that TSCOG must have suffered actual damages (I forget the legal term, but in order for a slander-of-title suit to succeed, the plantif must have suffered actual damages; not theoretical or potential, but actual monetary damages).

      TSCOG's first suit was dismissed (without prejudice) because Novell pointed out they did not claim any actual damage. TSCOG's second suit still did not claim any actual damage, only elaborated on their potential damages, but Novell totally ignored that in their motion. I don't know why, it was the most severe deficiency in TSCOG's suit and after their first suit was dismissed for exactly that reason, Novell totally ignored it in their second motion.

    2. Re:Summary judgement is still possible by Morel · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You just like to say "summary judgement", don't you?

    3. Re:Summary judgement is still possible by Bloater · · Score: 1

      > TSCOG's second suit still did not claim any actual damage, only elaborated on their potential damages, but Novell totally ignored that in their motion. I don't know why...

      Perhaps they *want* to go to trial? Perhaps they have some cast-iron evidence that TSCOG wouldn't have much of a chance to know about because Novell's UNIX business was sold to the company now known as Tarantella, who then sold it on to the company now known as The SCO Group. There is a large opportunity for discussions between Novell and Tarantella to be documented but Tarantella's documents to be treated without care as they were not of much use to them (carrying little benefit).

      This is self consistent, but is of course only one possibility.

    4. Re:Summary judgement is still possible by Bloater · · Score: 1

      Addendum: If this were the case, it could be Tarantella's fault and could possibily open them up to a lawsuit from whatever is left of The SCO Group. Tarantella bosses either know The SCO Group is right, or they are quaking in their boots right now.

      BTW: I am not a lawyer.

    5. Re:Summary judgement is still possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps they *want* to go to trial?

      I've heard that theory, but I don't believe it. A slander of title suit is a poor way to prove who has the copyright. TSCOG will just drag out the case with discovery, more discovery, and then demand more discovery. And then, maybe, it goes to trial and, maybe, you lose. And the only people who win are the lawyers.

      But just getting the case dismissed hurts TSCOG almost as much with almost no effort, if Novell had just pushed the lack of actual damages in their motion. Maybe they can get a summary judgement, maybe not. But that's very iffy.

    6. Re:Summary judgement is still possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of interest, wasn't tarantella snapped up by IBM?

      If that is that case, then I suspect that the SCO Group are in even more trouble than they thought they already were. Takes a lot of balls to pick on IBM in the first place - to do it twice would be suicide beyond any doubt.

    7. Re:Summary judgement is still possible by !Squalus · · Score: 1

      " Just out of interest, wasn't tarantella snapped up by IBM?"

      Nope, it was Sun Microsystems.

      --
      All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
  5. It should have hapened a long time ago by newsblaze · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It always seemed more about a failed company clutching at straws to get attention and maybe if they could pull it off, a lot of money and control.
    - But they never had a good story that would hold up.

    --
    Daily News http://newsblaze.com
  6. This makes me wonder.. by Aeron65432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    does SCO actually legitimately create anything, anymore?

    1. Re:This makes me wonder.. by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes.

      Legel briefs.

      well, at least they make sure they get made even if they outsource the work to another company.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:This makes me wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod redundant. You and every other karma whore wonder and post the same thing every time a SCO story is posted.

    3. Re:This makes me wonder.. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1
      Legel briefs.

      I'm wearing some right now.
      Everyone tells me they are very stylish.


      -- The Emperor

    4. Re:This makes me wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, FUDge sandwiches.

    5. Re:This makes me wonder.. by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Not really - I'm starting to get jobs to migrate machines from Netware to Linux, so industry is slowly clueing in.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    6. Re:This makes me wonder.. by plaxion · · Score: 1

      Do aggravation and high blood pressure count?

  7. I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't Unix 'created' by the NFS to run things that needed to run fairly well without the machine going zonkers? And was that 'Unix' or am I completely wrong?

    1. Re:I'm confused by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're just completely wrong.

      Unix was created by AT&T (supposedly to run a space-war game).

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    2. Re:I'm confused by hendersj · · Score: 1

      Yep, here's a version of it ported to Java.

      --
      Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
  8. Islamic terrorists troll slashdot? by xtermin8 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Oops! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muad'Dib

    Actually, isn't anything possible in a
    • fictional
    future?

  9. Re:Don't sweat it. by thinkliberty · · Score: 2, Informative

    Linux copyrights and patents are safe and companies like IBM, Redhat and Novell will protect them.

    http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981 SCO also said they were coming after BSD.

  10. Re:Don't sweat it. by sloanster · · Score: 1

    Do sweat it, though. Mac makes a better Unix anyway so you can always dump your Linux and go with BSD. BSD copyrights and patents are safe and companies like Apple will protect them.

    Nice troll.

    I have a mac, it runs OSX Tiger. Nice little desktop, but "a better unix?" I don't think so. Let's just say I prefer suse 9.3 on the desktop, and in the server room, there is absolutely no comparison.

    There is certainly a place for OSX, but trolls like the parent do nothing to help the mac cause.

  11. In summary by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Funny

    1.) SCO sues people for infringing their copyrights

    2.) Novell publicly claims SCO doesn't actually own the copyrights.

    3.) SCO sues Novell for, erm... "slander of copyright"

    4.) Novell files a motion to get the case dismissed. Judge denies but drops hints that it could work...

    5.) Novell files another motion to dismiss.

    6.) (You are here) The judge says quit trying for a dismissal, it all must to go to trial, presumably to resolve who actually owns the copywrites.

    7.) circa 2009, trial begins.

    8.) The sun expands and engulfs the Earth in plasma. Utah slagged into a molten puddle.

    9.) UT&T, corporate descendent of AT&T, publicly claims Novell does not actually own the copyrights.

    10.) An Ixian investment group buys majority shares of GBM, UT&T, Novell and enslaves the entire population inhabiting the artificial planets orbiting Betelgeuse, where the descendents of Darl McBride are rumored to have migrated after Earth was no longer tolerable.

    11.) Zarthon declares war on Ix, pointing out that Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, and Douglas McIlroy were all genetic plants sent to humanity to promulgate rational computation throughout the universe.

    12.) Heat Death overcomes the universe as the Zath-Ix war consumes all Baryonic matter 18.3E21 Earth years early.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    1. Re:In summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      13 ???
      14 profit.

    2. Re:In summary by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you, scientology makes sense now!

    3. Re:In summary by markana · · Score: 1

      And after all this - the ownership of the copyrights will *still* be in dispute...

      (Hmmm... maybe there's some way to tap this as a perpetual energy source. Can you convert trial motions to kinetic motion?)

    4. Re:In summary by cortana · · Score: 1

      I wish the Lameness Filter would filter out all posts that contain numbered lists, '???' and 'profit'.

      Perhaps this is a job for Greasemonkey.

    5. Re:In summary by tktk · · Score: 1
      (Hmmm... maybe there's some way to tap this as a perpetual energy source. Can you convert trial motions to kinetic motion?)

      No...trial motions are basically black holes. Time eventually goes to a standstill for anything entering its event horizon.

    6. Re:In summary by DualDescription · · Score: 1

      13)Profit!

    7. Re:In summary by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      14) Xenu!

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    8. Re:In summary by BlackMesaLabs · · Score: 1

      You forgot the last two points!
      13) ???
      14) Profit!!

  12. In soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In soviet russia, you do nose candy and sue SCO.

    1. Re:In soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In soviet russia, younglings kill SCO.

  13. Offtopic: Can someone.... by Nagatzhul · · Score: 2, Funny

    find the dealer that is selling Darl his drugs and shoot him, please? His flights of "fancy" are getting old.

    How in the hell can he go after BSD?

    --
    "All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant
    1. Re:Offtopic: Can someone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on how much /LSD/ he's consumed lately.

    2. Re:Offtopic: Can someone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      find the dealer that is selling Darl his drugs and shoot him, please?

      Nah, that's too messy. Just give him a little ball of speed, ecstasy and viagra. That's messy too, but in a fun way.

    3. Re:Offtopic: Can someone.... by darc · · Score: 1

      Maybe he misread it as LSD?

      --
      Tired of legitimate data sources? Try UNCYCLOPEDIA
  14. Isn't Caldera a medicine for skin rashes? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to work with several ex-SCO people in Santa Cruz. Great people to work with. They were all hardcore Linux/and/or/BSD people who were disgusted with the direction/erection that Darl McBride and his sad, Lindon, Utah ward members had taken the company they helped build.

    This suit is a joke, and I hope that Caldera gets theirs in the end.
    I also will firmly place my tinfoil hat on and assume that M$ has something to do with this...

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Isn't Caldera a medicine for skin rashes? by tktk · · Score: 1
      ... I hope that Caldera gets theirs in the end.

      And when they do, I hope it's sharp and pointy.

    2. Re:Isn't Caldera a medicine for skin rashes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are naive. SCO is evil as is everyone associated with it. We hope they all die a slow, painful death of cancer.

    3. Re:Isn't Caldera a medicine for skin rashes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope that Caldera gets theirs in the end. And without the benefit of vasoline, either!

  15. Re:Don't sweat it. by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

    I agree it sure sounds trollish ;-) However, I'd say an arguement COULD be made. If you start with the fact that BSD "is" unix while Linux is "like" unix, then consider OSX is based on BSD, you could make the above argument.

    Now with the inclusion of mach and other features into OSX I'm not sure how valid the above is, but I'm guessing the arguement could be made. Really though it I guess is doesn't matter since Linux isn't a unix so it cannot be the better unix. As I said with the screwing with BSD that OSX did I'm not sure OSX is still a unix or not. Anyone care to chime in on this? In OSX still unix?

    --
    "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
  16. What Would Happen by Radical+Rad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What if the judge ruled against Novell still owning the copyrights? We've all seen stranger things happen in the Amercian court system.

    1. Re:What Would Happen by cranos · · Score: 1

      Then conceivably SCO would still have a chance to knock IBM for continuing to distribute AIX after SCO supposedly pulled their SYSV license.

      With regards to the whole "Linux ate our baby" thing, it's not going to change a whole lot.

    2. Re:What Would Happen by darksider415 · · Score: 1

      Well, Hell would freeze over, SuSE would probably cease to exist. I'd be up a creek, because I rely on SuSE as my primary OS. SCO would continue to sue Linux distributors until the end of time, and Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars would invade Earth. Let SCO lose. They've had it coming for a while, anyway.

      --
      And they wonder why I left Windows.....
    3. Re:What Would Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because the company seizes to exist, you don't have to stop using their products.

    4. Re:What Would Happen by Phexro · · Score: 1

      SCO would ask Novell for the rights, saying they are "necessary to their business," which is (roughly) what the APA says they need to do to get them.

      Novell would say, "no, they're not," since they weren't necessary for the prior decade, and they'd be right.

      SCO sues Novell for breach of contract, and the fun starts over again.

    5. Re:What Would Happen by killjoe · · Score: 1

      The american justice system (I can't help but snicker every time I say that) has proven itself to be a gigantic crapshoot where anything can happen to anybody at any time.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    6. Re:What Would Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's time to go back to the good old days of casting lots. Let the gods decide!

  17. Re:Don't sweat it. by sloanster · · Score: 1

    I agree it sure sounds trollish ;-) However, I'd say an arguement COULD be made. If you start with the fact that BSD "is" unix while Linux is "like" unix, then consider OSX is based on BSD, you could make the above argument.

    There is the "legal" definition of unix aka "UNIX(TM)" and then there is tech definition of unix, aka "genetic" unix, i.e. the set of OSes which are clearly part of the unix family tree.

    Neither Linux nor BSD are legally "UNIX(TM)", but both are clearly "unix"; Solaris and HP-UX are both "unix" and "UNIX(TM)".

    As far as I'm concerned, OSX is "unix" as well, even though it's not "UNIX(TM)"; OTOH, microsoft windows is an example of an OS that is neither "unix" nor "UNIX(TM)"

    Linux is just as much unix as BSD, but linux started out (though inspired by minix) as young Mr Torvalds' clean room implementation of SVR3-ish unix as described by Maurice J Bach in "The Design of the UNIX Operating System"

  18. Why would I want to drop open source by NemesisNL · · Score: 1

    And trade it for an OS that only has a core that is open source but will not allow anyone to get even close to the realy nice stuf. Darwin isn't OSX if you hadn't noticed, so no thank you. I see little difference between bill and steve in that regard. Can't get more closed than steve is.

  19. Novell's Very Foolish.... by mpapet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    to keep this case going.

    Hundreds of thousands of dollars just evaporating in court and lawyer costs every month this thing goes on. Is Novell so well-off this won't affect their bottom line every quarter?

    If there's any SCO left when they get to the end, they declare bankruptcy. Then what does Novell have? Satisfaction in being right? I wish I could feed my family by just being right.

    Or maybe the IP issues are better clarified. Well, Novell can't use that to their exclusive benefit. So where's the money?

    What does Microsoft get? One less competitor.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:Novell's Very Foolish.... by close_wait · · Score: 1
      Novell's Very Foolish to keep this case going

      They haven't got much choice. SCO is suing them for slander of title, so Novell either continue, or admit liability and pay up punative damages for the "slander".

    2. Re:Novell's Very Foolish.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read this closely: Novell is the defendant. Novell doesn't have a choice but to continue to move forward, SCO sued them.

      Once Novell has clear title, though, speculation is that they can then claim their legal expenses as special damages and sue SCO for the exact same thing that SCO is attempting to sue Novell for.

  20. SCO v. IBM ruling today: trial set for Feb 2007 by petrofsky · · Score: 4, Informative

    Judge Kimball followed up that Monday SCO v. Novell ruling with a SCO v. IBM ruling today. Here are text and pdf versions.

    He granted SCO a four-hour deposition of Sam Palmisano, IBM's CEO and former VP of all things Linux. He denied SCO's motion to belatedly amend its complaint to include a claim for Project Monterey-related copyright infringement.

    The order includes a new schedule. The old one had been tossed out in January.

    The new schedule roughly matches IBM's proposal (as amended at the hearing; see pages 90-91 of the transcript where IBM says to add two months to everything in the proposal), but with another two months added for most pre-trial dates, pushing the end of discovery to July 10, 2006. He added another couple months for deciding dispositive motions before the trial, making for a trial date of February 26, 2007. He included the interim deadlines IBM wanted for parties to "Identify with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material", setting December 22, 2005 as the final date for all source code at issue to be identified by version, file, and line of code.

    Per Kimball's order back in February there will be no summary judgment motions before the end of discovery, and the new schedule calls for the last brief on post-discovery summary judgment motions not to be due until September 26, 2006, so I think November 2006 is the earliest we could see a summary judgment motion heard and decided.

    1. Re:SCO v. IBM ruling today: trial set for Feb 2007 by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy crap. When did this shit start? Wasn't it like two or three years ago? It's amazing to me that the courts have not asked SCO the question any two year old would have "what code are you talking about"?.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  21. Re:Don't sweat it. by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

    It's probably more correct to say that OS X has a Unix rather than is a Unix. Most of the nice things that would cause you to purchase a Macintosh have absolutely nothing to do with Unix (an Open API specification).

    If you are looking for sh and Apache and MS Office, Mac's the way to go. If you really want a Unix, probably look for a vendor that considers Unix their #1 priority.

    --
    Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  22. Just feeding a troll, but... by burnin1965 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You haven't been paying much attention to the SCO plan...

    McBride said during a press briefing at the inaugural Enterprise IT Week at cdXpo Conference here. "We have enough sorted out, but we are so focused on the [IBM litigation]. With our limited energies and what our guys are going through, we probably won't file any suits against BSD until sometime in the first half of next year."
    http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981

    So your precious Mac and BSD aren't safe from these clowns either. But then you likely don't really care since your just a cowardly troll.

    burnin

    1. Re:Just feeding a troll, but... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Haha good luck Darl, the BSD code has been reviewed in the AT&T case and the code split was under the supervision of a court when AT&T and Berkeley split the code. If he really found something in the BSD codebase, then it definitely was only code which was sanctioned by the court to be public domain. The funny thing is, he has yet to prove his allegations against linux and he makes new ones against BSD which even has a court trial gone through and is cleaner than anything else there is possibly, from a legal standpoint.

    2. Re:Just feeding a troll, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your precious Mac and BSD aren't safe from these clowns either.

      Actually, "we" are safer. Because "we" have a settlement, and "we" can, in mass, go and sue SCO in federal court.

      SCO could not defend themselves VS many individuals who'd sue. It would bankrupt them.

      The day SCO goes after BSD is the day+1 I go down to the courthouse and file suit (if the claim is WRT the old code).

      As 'the leader of the free world' said "Bring it on!"

    3. Re:Just feeding a troll, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we probably won't file any suits against BSD until sometime in the first half of next year."

      Since this article is going on two years old, I think Darl is a little behind schedule.

    4. Re:Just feeding a troll, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may think your safe from sco, but your really not, the linux folks didn't think sco could drag this mess on this long in the courts, so please, realize, that bsd could be stuck in the same mess. there was no court order on the bsd/att code, so a settlement doesn't answer the question, so your not as safe as you think. And for the record, it should be readily appearent to all, that it doesn't require evidence to file a copyright infringement case, is the one thing sco-vs-ibm has shown the world.

    5. Re:Just feeding a troll, but... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Haha good luck Darl, the BSD code has been reviewed in the AT&T case and the code split was under the supervision of a court when AT&T and Berkeley split the code. If he really found something in the BSD codebase, then it definitely was only code which was sanctioned by the court to be public domain.

      Perhaps Darl was referring to something that had been added to the BSD operating systems after the split between USG and BSD.

    6. Re:Just feeding a troll, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article you cite is from November 2003, so the case against BSD should have been filed in 1H2004 according to what it says -- a year ago. So who hasn't been paying attention?

  23. Question by mcc · · Score: 1
    So since this is going forward,
    1. Could the slander of title case end with the decision that SCO does not own UNIX?
    2. If so, what happens to SCO's other lawsuits?
    1. Re:Question by Bloater · · Score: 1

      > 1. Could the slander of title case end with the decision that SCO does not own UNIX?

      It is possible, but I think the judge could find in favour of Novell without making any statement about the copyright.

      > 2. If so, what happens to SCO's other lawsuits?

      They sue Tarantella for everything they've got.

  24. another stupid lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be something in the Utah water...

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24340

    1. Re:another stupid lawsuit by bmo · · Score: 1

      Yes. The same Merkey that you're talking about is suing the world and its dog because ...well...nobody can figure it out. He's suing Perens for having a killfile, for one.

      Go Figure.

      --
      BMO

  25. They have new releases by burnin1965 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you look at their product offerings they do have new releases of SCO OpenServer and SCO Unixware. Take a gander at some of their features:

    Optional KDE desktop for modern look and feel
    OpenSSH and OpenSSL
    Includes Mozilla 1.7
    Includes MySQL database (Community version)
    Includes Postgresql database
    CUPS has been added as an alternative to System V LP
    Gimp-print 4.2.5, foomatic 3.0.0-01, and ghostscript 7.05.6

    Now if your a BSD or linux user you may be thinking "hmm, those look familiar" and you would be correct.

    It seems that many of the new features in SCOs software offerings are actually open source software from those same people the SCO CEO says are dope smoking, thieving, pinko communists.

    burnin

    1. Re:They have new releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO is disputing the legitimacy of the Linux kernel source, not every single GPL/BSD project in existance.

  26. Re:Don't sweat it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful? You've got to be fucking joking...somebody shoot that moderator! Parent is a fucking troll from a fucking Mac fanboy if I've ever seen one.

    First, SCOG have already said they're thinking about going after BSD.

    Second, companies like Novell and IBM are defending SYSV, or haven't you been paying attention?

    --
    If you're going to troll, fucking do it properly

  27. Going all the way tonight tonight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Sounds like a real Meat Loaf / Ellen Foley moment.

    Though it's cold and lonely in the deep dark night
    I can see paradise by the server light
    Paradise by the server light

  28. So the Judge is using IBM's project plan. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Now IBM will just try and make SCO spend as much money as they can to comply with thier timetable and milestones. They will continue to push Linux in the meantime and since the judge is using thier plan I am betting the IBM QA department will be giving SCO orders from now on.

    I belive SCO has acted like Cuba during the cold war (all the really stupid stuff is done by proxy). The real struggle is MS vs IBM. MS want time to catch up with *nix like tools built in to the CLI and IBM wan't to push Linux because they are Integrators and realise they no longer need to build thier own basic components. When I worked there in the late nineties, Lou Gerstner declared "All code has been written, it just needs to be managed." I thought it was kind of humurous at the time, but now I think he was right when looked at form a "big picture" point of view .

    You can't beat the borg by using thier plan!

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  29. Current events, calendar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Quick update: IBM wins most of the motions heard at the 21 May 2005 hearing in SCOvIBM. SCO's try to add more claims to the suit was denied, and IBM gets a deadline for the parties to disclose "allegedly infringing material." SCO does get to depose IBM CEO Sam Palmisano, but only for four hours. I'll post explicit dates from the new scheduling order once I've gotten a chance to read it.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: Judge Kimball has considered the motions discussed at the 21 May 2005 hearing, and has now ruled . He denies SCO's motion to amend their complaint, adopts the features of the scheduling order prefer by IBM, grants IBM's motion to narrow, but grants SCO's motion to depose IBM's CEO. Discovery continues. Redacted and unsealed motions are dribbling out. The parties seem to be still consulting with each other on the priviledge log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied Novell's motion to dismiss. The likely next step here is for Novell to file an answer to SCO's complaint.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated that if "it would no longer be an inefficient use of judicial resources" or "there is evidence that SCO has misrepresented the issues," Red Hat can refile their motion for reconsideration to lift the stay. The parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update was due approximately 30 June 2005.

    • SCOvAutoZone: Judge Jones stayed this case "pending further order of the court" and the parties are instructed to update the court every 90 days on the other related actions in which SCO is involved. The next update is due around 11 July 2005.

    In summary:

  30. Re:Don't sweat it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    companies like IBM, Redhat and Novell will protect them.

    From the Terrible Secret of SCO?

  31. Re:Don't sweat it. by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

    Do not trust the litigation robot. He is malfunctioning.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  32. No, A Caldera is a .. by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

    WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn] caldera n : a large crater caused by the violent explosion of a volcano that collapses into a depression

  33. SCO *is* disputing the legitimacy of the GPL by walterbyrd · · Score: 1


    Sorry to correct you, but scox certainly is disputing the legitimacy every single GPL project in existance.

    Scox has declared the GPL, not only illegal and unenforcable, but actually unconstitutional.

    These accusations by scox are in their court filings, and in a letter to the US congress.

    But, that doesn't stop from distributed GPL projects, and bragging about it.

  34. U've got it backwards: scox is suing novell by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    eom.

  35. Stephen Baxter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although there is a hint of (ick!) LRH in the names, the GP post is really rooted more in Stephen Baxter's Xeelee Sequence, which is GREAT Science Fiction and free of any attempts at religion-founding.

  36. Yes, long ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it became illegal (And yet, no investigations).

  37. Re:Don't sweat it. by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like to ask you a question. This is not a troll, I honestly want some information.

    I am a long time Mac developer. I have written or contributed to many commercial software applications for older versions of Mac OS and also for MacOS X. I have some experience with Unix (and getting more all the time with OS X). I am not, nor have ever been a system admin. I don't think I really "grok" the kinds of issues that system admins have to deal with.

    So, my question is this: what specifically is better about suse 9.3 (or any other distro) than MacOS X?

    To my non-system administrator eye, the X Serve looks pretty damn cool. I watched the webcast of the event where they introduced them and I was impressed with the ease at which you could "get at" the hardware other features of the system. In the past, I have "administered" (purchased, helped setup, etc.) a Mac file server running MacOS 9 for a Mac development team. I can easily see that some of the features of the XServe would have been very helpful in overcoming problems we had then. For example, the XServe runs nicely when "headless" whereas our old desktop Mac cum server did not run well at all when headless - we had to buy a special piece of hardware into tricking it to run headless and it didn't work very well. The ease of setting up RAID on the XServe would have been nice. Our (3rd party) backup system did not work very well on our "server" (which was a plain G4 tower). We mainly used it to serve some internal web pages, hold our source code repository, and hold various files for the group to access. For our needs an XServe, had it been available at the time, would have been better.

    I have heard, though, that real system admins are *not* impressed with the X Serve and think its either a joke or way overpriced for what you get.

    I would be very interested in hearing specific things that my non-admin mind can understand about what kinds of features system admins are looking for in Unix systems.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score